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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                                   120
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            727
<ALLOWANCES>                                             116
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        1124
<PP&E>                                                   425
<DEPRECIATION>                                           297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          1252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   4243
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                             3924
<COMMON>                                               10427
<OTHER-SE>                                            (17342)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            1252
<SALES>                                                  803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         803
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           2082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          66
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (1345)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (1345)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (1345)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.42)



</TABLE>
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 Feel Golf Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lee Miller, Interim Chief Financial 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d)); and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Feel Golf Co., Inc., Inc.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 FEEL GOLF CO., INC.
 
 Date: April 13, 2011
 
 /s/  Lee MillerLee MillerInterim Chief Financial Officer
§ 30.182 Who may renounce an inherited interest on behalf of an heir or devisee who dies before the hearing? If an individual heir or devisee dies before the hearing, a renunciation may be made on his or her behalf by any of the following, if the judge makes a determination that the renunciation is in the best interest of the parties: ( a ) An individual appointed by a probate court to act on behalf of his or her private (*i.e.,* non-Federal-trust) estate, including but not limited to a personal representative, administrator, or executor; or
( b ) Someone appointed by the judge with the express approval of all the heirs or devisees of the deceased heir or devisee.
§ 4.315 Reconsideration of a Board decision. ( a ) Reconsideration of a decision of the Board will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Any party to the decision may petition for reconsideration. The petition must be filed with the Board within 30 days from the date of the decision and must contain a detailed statement of the reasons why reconsideration should be granted.
( b ) A party may file only one petition for reconsideration.
( c ) The filing of a petition will not stay the effect of any decision or order and will not affect the finality of any decision or order for purposes of judicial review, unless so ordered by the Board.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Patrick Soon-Shiong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 9, 2006 |  | /S/ PATRICK SOON-SHIONG
|                    |  | Patrick Soon-Shiong    
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
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 Annual Report of LitFunding Corp. a Nevada corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Morton Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of
his knowledge, 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 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to LitFunding Corp., and will be retained by LitFunding Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Morton Reed
--------------------------
Morton Reed
Chief Executive Officer
September 14, 2004
TTUULLAARR EE CCOO

KKEERR NN CC OO

·|}ÿ65

·|}ÿ155

7

1

4

8

5

6

9

8

7

3

9

9

3 2

6

2

4

3 3

1

5 4

9

2

4

2

12

35

31

18

19

13

30

12

33

23

33

34

26

28

16 14

21

13

15

10

17

21

17

15

36

16

22

20 24

28

18

15

16

16

10

27

27

32 34

29

10

22

15

11

25

11

10

21

22

14

11

20

14

19

23

24

23

22

21

11

14

23

26

33

35

34

35

36 31

32

8

32

33

29

34

5

20

17

35

32

26 27

1

20

28

T24S R27E

T24S R26E

T25S R27E

T25S R26E

T23S R26E T23S R27E

FRIANT-KERN CANAL

Rag Gulch Water District

Contract No. 14-06-200-8367A-LTR1

EXHIBIT A

"

0 0.5 1 2 3

Miles

1785-202-6

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

Date: October 21, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\rag_gulch\rag_gulch.mxd

Contractor's Service Area (Irrigation Only)

Contractor's Service Area (Irrigation and M&I)

District Boundary

Project water delivered from the Friant Division

LAKE WOOLLOMES

WHITE RIVER
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

OMAR JOSE LOPEZ MARQUEZ , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1287

[ June 1 , 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; August A. Bonavita , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502020CO003740A

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elijah Giuliano, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mary E lle n M. Farrell and Sorraya M. Solages

- Jones , Assistant Attorney s General, West Palm Beach , for appellee.

Helene C. Hvizd, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office, for Amicus Curiae Palm Beach County

.

On the State’s Concession

M AY , J.

The defendant appealed his sentence for violating Palm Beach County Ordinance 18

- 7 for solicitation and distribution on public roads after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss. He argued the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the ordinance violated his first amend ment rights. On April 27, 2022

, the County repealed the ordinance.

The State has now filed a concession

. “[T] he repeal of the statute pending an appeal will deprive the appellate court of any power to render a judgment by which this penalty may be enfor ced, and that the effect of a repealing statute is to obliterate the statute repealed as completely as if it had never been enacted . . . .” Pensacola & A.R. Co. v. State , 33 So. 985,2 98 6 (Fla. 190 3) . T he State concedes the case should be remanded with i nstructions for the trial court to vacate the withh old of adjudication

, permit the defendant to withdraw his plea

, and t he State to nolle prosse the charge. The defendant has responded and indicated we should simply reverse and remand the case for dismiss al of the charges. Id. (“It follows from what has been said that the judgment of the circuit court in said cause must be reversed, and the cause dismissed.”)

. We agree with the defendant

. We therefore reverse and remand the case for that purpose.

Reve rsed and remanded

.

W ARNER and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>
                                                                   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 Neoware Systems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Kantrowitz, Chairman, President and 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 such officer's 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
     as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




/s/ MICHAEL KANTROWITZ
----------------------
Michael Kantrowitz
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
February 9, 2005

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
JOHN DAVID ADAMS’ NOTICE OF EXPEDITED APPEAL PAGE 1

NO. 416-01104-2015

STARSIDE CUSTOM BUILDERS, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 416th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

JOHN DAVID ADAMS, and

DARA A. ADAMS,

§

§

§

Defendants. § COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT JOHN DAVID ADAMS’ NOTICE OF EXPEDITED APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

Plaintiff John David Adams, under the authority of Rule 25 TRAP, files this notice of

appeal.

1. A motion to dismiss (Defendant John David Adams’ First Supplemental Motion

to Dismiss) was brought by Defendant against Plaintiff pursuant to Chapter 27 of

the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. A hearing was held on such motion

on August 14, 2015. The statutory deadline for the Court to rule on the motion

was on September 14, 2015.

2. The 416th Judicial District Court in Collin County, Texas failed to rule on

Defendant John David Adams’ First Supplemental Motion to Dismiss in Cause

No. 416-01104-2015 styled, Starside Custom Builders, LLC v. John David

Adams and Dara A. Adams. 3. From this denial of Defendant John David Adams’ First Supplemental Motion to

Dismiss by operation of law, Defendant John David Adams desires to appeal to

the Fifth District Court of Appeals, in Dallas, Texas. Such appeal is interlocutory.

4. The appeal of this case is an expedited and/or accelerated appeal, pursuant to

Section 27.008 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2015.

Filed: 9/22/2015 5:04:05 PM

Andrea S. Thompson

District Clerk

Collin County, Texas

By Sandra Hill Deputy

Envelope ID: 7045214

ACCEPTED

05-15-01162-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

10/6/2015 3:54:53 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

05-15-01162-CV

 RECEIVED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 10/6/2015 3:54:53 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
JOHN DAVID ADAMS’ NOTICE OF EXPEDITED APPEAL PAGE 2

Respectfully submitted,

THE SUSTER LAW GROUP, PLLC

1316 Village Creek Dr., Ste. 500

Plano, Texas 75093-4461

Telephone: (972) 380-0130

Facsimile: (972) 380-4517

Email: office@susterlaw.com

/s/ Israel Suster___________________

Israel Suster

State Bar No. 19523580

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

JOHN DAVID ADAMS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on September 22, 2015, a true and correct copy of Defendant John

David Adams’ Notice of Expedited Appeal was served on the following:

Nathan Allen, Jr. VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE

Jones, Allen & Fuquay, LLP

8828 Greenville Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75243

Attorney for Plaintiff

Byron Henry VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE

Cowles & Thompson

901 Main St, Suite 3900

Dallas, TX 75202

Attorney for Defendant Dara A. Adams

/s/ Israel Suster___________________

Israel Suster
San Mateo, CA
                                                               July 28, 1999
                                                               $147,000

                             SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

For  value  received,  the  undersigned,  Hypermedia  Communications,   Inc.,  a
California  corporation  ("Borrower") promises to pay MK GVD Fund ("Lender") the
principal  sum of one hundred  forty-seven  thousand  dollars  ($147,000),  with
interest  from the date hereof at a rate of ten percent  (10%) per annum,  which
amount shall be secured by all of the assets of Borrower.  Said principal  shall
be due and  payable on demand by Lender,  which  demand may be made at any time,
but in no event shall the principal be paid later than one hundred  eighty (180)
days after the date of this Note.  This Note may be prepaid at any time  without
penalty.

In the event of liquidation,  merger, sale, or winding up of the company, Lender
shall be entitled to receive,  prior and in  preference  to any other holders of
debt or equity securities,  (except as provided in item 1. below), the principal
value of this Note plus accrued interest.

The  following is a statement of the rights of the Borrower of this Note and the
conditions to which this Note is subject,  to which the Borrower and Lender,  by
the acceptance of this Note agree:

         1. Subordination - Creditor subordinates to Business Finance ("BF") any
security  interest or lien that  Creditor  may have in any property of Borrower.
All Subordinated  Debt is subordinated in right of payment to all obligations of
Borrower to BF now existing or hereafter arising.

         2.  Security  Interest  - Borrower  hereby  grants to Lender a security
interest  in all assets of  Borrower  to secure  repayment  of the  indebtedness
represented  by this Note.  Borrower  hereby  represents and agrees that it will
take all actions  contemplated above including the execution of a UCC1 financing
statement,  which for the purposes of such  execution,  Borrower hereby appoints
Lender as its attorney-in-fact to execute such UCC1 financing statement.

         3. Attorneys' Fees - If any action or proceeding  shall be commenced to
enforce  this Note or any right  arising  in  connection  with  this  Note,  the
prevailing  party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from
the other party the reasonable  attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by
such  prevailing   party  in  connection  with  such  action  or  proceeding  or
negotiation to avoid such action or proceeding.  In the event that any provision
of this Note should be deemed unlawful or unenforceable, such provision shall be
struck and the remainder  hereof shall be enforced to the fullest  extent of the
law.

         4.  Governing  Law - This Note is  issued  in and shall be  interpreted
under the laws of the State of  California.

Issued this 28 day of July, 1999.

                                          Hypermedia Communications, Inc.

                                          By: __________________

                                          Title: ________________
§ 3860.1 Fees. ( a ) Each mineral patent application must include the processing fee found in the fee schedule in § 3000.12 of this chapter to cover BLM's adjudication costs for the application.
( b ) As provided at § 3800.5 of this chapter, BLM will charge a separate processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in § 3000.11 of this chapter to cover its costs for conducting and preparing the validity examination and report.
[70 FR 58879, Oct. 7, 2005]
#### Strain *et al. v.*Stark.

February 15, 1911.

Injunction. Before Judge Fite. Whitfield superior court. June 9, 1910.

*F. K. McOutchen*and *Maddox, McOamy & Shumate,*for plaintiffs in error. *W. E. Mann*and *O. D. McOutchen,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. The plaintiff and the defendants were in possession of adjoining lots of land under claim of title, and there was a dispute between them as to the location of the dividing line. The defendants were proceeding to cut the timber on the disputed territory, and the plaintiff filed his petition to enjoin them. On the interlocutory hearing the evidence was conflicting as to the location of the dividing line, and the court granted the injunction prayed. Under the facts of this case the court did not abuse his discretion in the. grant of a temporary injunction. *Gray Lumber Company*v. *Gaskin,*122 *Ga.*342 (50 S. E. 164).

2. Upon a hearing of an application for an interlocutory injunction, if the prayer he granted it operates to grant the injunction until the final hearing. The interlocutory order in this case is susceptible of a construction that the court granted a perpetual injunction. This the court can not do on an interlocutory hearing; and direction is given that the order he so modified as to render the injunction granted interlocutory instead of permanent. *Payton*v. *Ford,*134 *Ga.*587 (68 S. E. 300).

*Judgment affirmed, %cith direction.*

*All the •Justices concur.*
#### § 3101.60 State's or charitable organization's ownership of surface overlying federally owned minerals.

Where the United States has conveyed title to, or otherwise transferred the control of the surface of lands to any State or political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or a college or any other educational corporation or association, or a charitable or religious corporation or association, with reservation of the oil and gas rights to the United States, such party will be given an opportunity to suggest any lease stipulations deemed necessary for the protection of existing surface improvements or uses, to set forth the facts supporting the necessity of the stipulations and also to file any objections it may have to the issuance of a lease. Where a party controlling the surface opposes the issuance of a lease or wishes to place such restrictive stipulations upon the lease that it could not be operated upon or become part of a drilling unit and hence is without mineral value, the facts submitted in support of the opposition or request for restrictive stipulations may be given consideration and each case will be decided on its merits. The opposition to lease or necessity for restrictive stipulations expressed by the party controlling the surface affords no legal basis or authority to refuse to issue the lease or to issue the lease with the requested restrictive stipulations for the reserved minerals in the lands; in such case, the final determination whether to issue and with what stipulations, or not to issue the lease depends upon whether or not the interests of the United States would best be served by the issuance of the lease.
### §911. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 86–97, §1, July 17, 1959, 73 Stat. 221, which related to membership roll, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.