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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3,4 AND 5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           5,552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,532,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                   197,008
<INVENTORY>                                  3,236,543
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,902,626
<PP&E>                                       4,347,631
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,626,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,698,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,917,693
<BONDS>                                      1,733,171
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,306
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,992,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,698,247
<SALES>                                      4,067,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,067,632
<CGS>                                        3,372,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,372,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               754,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             101,819
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (117,995)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (23,339)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (94,656)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (94,656)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Rim Semiconductor Company (the "Company"), does hereby certify that
to such officer's knowledge:





(1)           The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended January 31,
2008 (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 Company.





This
certification is made solely for the purposes of U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
for any other purpose.





March 24,
2008





/S/ BRAD
      KETCHBRAD
      KETCH
              PRESIDENT
      AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
              (AND
      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING
              OFFICER)
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
Annual Report of Spectra Energy Partners, LP on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Laura Buss Sayavedra, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Spectra Energy Partners GP, LLC, general partner of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP, general partner of Spectra Energy Partners, LP, 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 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 Spectra Energy Partners, LP.



|                     |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 11, 2010 |  | /s/ Laura Buss Sayavedra                                                                                                                                                                             
|                     |  | Laura Buss Sayavedra Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer Spectra Energy Partners GP, LLC General Partner of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP General Partner of Spectra Energy Partners,
LP
2009-1564.

#### State v. Richard.

Montgomery App. No. 23119, 2009-Ohio-3771.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
EXHIBIT
32





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION





To our
knowledge, the undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify
that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/ Thomas A. Vann
                
                /s/ William L. WallThomas
      A. Vann
                
                William
      L. WallPresident
      and
                
                Executive
      Vice PresidentChief
      Executive Officer
                
                Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
                
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)Date:
      November 5, 2010
                
                Date:
      November 5, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR
THE PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 1999
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,214,151
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,276,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,490,470
<PP&E>                                     123,839,462
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,630,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,699,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  94,699,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,699,419
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,652,424
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,566,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,364,087
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ron Shelton, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Adesto Technologies Corporation; and

2. Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report.

Date: April 28, 2017



By:

/s/ Ron SheltonRon Shelton Chief Financial
Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAQUAN WATSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 25 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of May

, 2017, the “Petition for Extension of Time to File

for Allowance of Appeal,” treated as a Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of

Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc , is DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2827 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2827

To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to include in 
 the definition of Appalachian region additional counties in the State 
                              of Alabama.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1993

 Mr. Hilliard introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to include in 
 the definition of Appalachian region additional counties in the State 
                              of Alabama.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 403 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (40 
U.S.C. App. 403) is amended in the matter relating to the State of 
Alabama--
            (1) by inserting ``Choctow, Clarke,'' after ``Chilton,'';
            (2) by inserting ``Dallas,'' after ``Cullman,'';
            (3) by inserting ``Greene, Hale,'' after ``Franklin,'';
            (4) by inserting ``Lowndes,'' after ``Limestone,'';
            (5) by inserting ``Marengo,'' after ``Madison,'';
            (6) by inserting ``Perry,'' after ``Morgan,'';
            (7) by inserting ``Sumter,'' after ``Shelby,''; and
            (8) by inserting ``Wilcox,'' after ``Walker,''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                   CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2007-HYB2
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-HYB2


         The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an
officer of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant
to Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                        Dated: March 14, 2008
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
                 ----------------------------

Board of Directors
GFS Bancorp, Inc.
Grinnell, Iowa

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of
GFS Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended June 30,
1995 and 1994.  These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.  

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to
above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of GFS Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary as of
June 30, 1995 and the consolidated results of their operations
and their cash flows for the years ended June 30, 1995 and 1994,
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


/s/ VROMAN, MCGOWEN, HURST, CLARK & SMITH, P.C.


Des Moines, Iowa
July, 1995
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clyde E. YOUNG, a.k.a. Red, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-14195

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 11, 2007.

David Andrew Sigler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Clyde E. Young, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In November 1990, appellant was convicted in the district court of several offenses he committed in carrying out a marijuana distribution scheme. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. The district court thereafter (in November 1998) vacated one of his convictions— Count Two alleging that he conspired to possess and distribute marijuana—because it was a lesser included offense in his Count One conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise.

The matter before us began with appellant’s May 7, 2004 request—made as a “Motion to vacate, modify, or set aside the judgment pursuant to [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 60(b)”—that the court order vacated the $50 assessment imposed as part of his Count Two sentence. The court, construing the request as having been made under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to remedy a clerical error, granted it on January 9, 2006.1

Appellant then requested the court on June 19, 2006, to enter an order for “clarification and determination,” referring to the January 9, 2006 order. The court denied the motion on July 18, 2006, stating *962that no clarification was necessary. This appeal followed.

It requires no citation of authority to say that a district court’s refusal to clarify a previous order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. We discern no abuse of discretion, much less error, in the court’s refusal to clarify an order granting appellant’s request for the cancellation of a $50 assessment.2

AFFIRMED.

1

. On May 22, 2006, appellant moved the court to "correct the record" by vacating his conviction on Count Sixteen of the indictment for attempting to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana. The court denied the motion on June 5, 2006. This ruling is not before us in this appeal.

2

. It may be that what appellant is seeking is the vacation of his conviction on Count Sixteen of the indictment. If that is what he desires, he should apply to this court for leave to file a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("A second or successive motion [under § 2255] must be certified as provided in section 2254 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals.”). We say this because he has previously litigated a § 2255 motion.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PETERSON INDUSTRIAL DEPOT, INC., PETERSON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, LLC, JADE STREET ENTERPRI SES, L.L.C., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1007

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:15

- cv

- 00490

- NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J AMES D OUGLAS G ILSON
, Durham Jones & Pinegar, PC, Salt Lake City, UT, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. Also represented by D AVID L EES A RRINGTON
, M ATTHEW J. O RME

.

B ORISLAV K USHNIR
, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appellee. Alsorepresented by J OSEPH H. H UNT , R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN
, J R ., F RANKLIN E. W HITE , J R

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE
, R EYNA
, and C HEN , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 2, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

, Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
#### Hamoyoun KAMKAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 05-73866, 05-75180.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 27, 2007.

Albert M. Sterwerf, Esq., Irvine, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Charles W. Scarborough, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hamoyoun Kamkar, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the petition for review in No. 05-73866, because it was not timely as to the BIA’s December 19, 2002 decision. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kamkar’s motion to reopen as untimely. Kamkar filed the motion more than two years after the BIA’s final order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (requiring that motions to reopen be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision), and Kamkar did not provide evidence that he acted with due diligence in pursuing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897 (holding that equitable tolling applies “during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”).

*674PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. (No. 05-73866)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. (No. 05-75180)

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Michael Randolfi, certify that:


|   |                                                                             
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.;




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;







Date: April 30, 2013


/s/ Michael RandolfiMichael RandolfiChief Financial Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00600

- CR

Joshua Rolston Majors a/k/a Joshua

Roston Majors

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 355t h District Court

o f Hood County (CR12459 )

August 7, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in th e trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot