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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM HOMEUSA'S 1997 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,758
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,068
<PP&E>                                           9,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           154
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,844
<SALES>                                         62,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,952
<CGS>                                           50,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,673
<INCOME-TAX>                                       276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,397
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,397
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Tufco Technologies, Inc. (the
Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: August 13,2004
    
    /s/ Michael B. WheelerMichael B. WheelerVice President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

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

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Etelos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

1.        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.        The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: April 24,  2009 |   | /s/ Daniel  J.A. Kolke                      |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Daniel J.A. Kolke, Chief  Executive Officer |
|                       |   | (Principal Financial  Officer)              |

 

----
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20657

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID ALLAN REEVES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-835-1

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

February 6 2002

Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

David Allan Reeves appeals his guilty-plea conviction for bank

robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence.

Reeves argues that the district court erroneously informed him that

he faced a maximum three-year term of supervised release at his

guilty-plea hearing, but then sentenced Reeves to five years of

supervised release.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that the district court’s plea admonishment that

Reeves faced a maximum three-year supervised release term was

harmless error. See United States v. Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349,

1359-60 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1



                                  CERTIFICATION

            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)

            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 Telstra Corporation Limited, an Australian
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

      The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2003 (the
"Report") 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
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 11, 2004                  /s/ Zygmunt E Switkowski
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Zygmunt E. Switkowski
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                               Managing Director


                                      -1-
§ 130.200 Eligible entities. The following entities are eligible to operate an SBDC network: ( a ) A public or private institution of higher education;
( b ) A land-grant college or university;
( c ) A college or school of business, engineering, commerce or agriculture;
( d ) A community or junior college;
( e ) A Women's Business Center operating pursuant to section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656);
( f ) The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands SBDC must have its principal office located in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and must: ( 1 ) Be a CNMI government or agency;
( 2 ) Be a regional entity;
( 3 ) Be a CNMI-chartered development, credit, or finance corporation;
( 4 ) Be an institution of higher education (including but not limited to any land-grant college or university, any college or school of business, engineering, commerce, or agriculture, community college or junior college);
( 5 ) Be a current SBA Women's Business Center (WBC); or
( 6 ) Be any entity formed by two or more of the entities in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section;
( g ) Any entity which was operating as a recipient organization as of December 31, 1990; or
( h ) Any entity operating continually as a recipient organization on or before December 31, 1990.
[60 FR 31056, June 13, 1995, as amended at 88 FR 76642, Nov. 7, 2023]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI-DADE DIVISION

SCANZ TECHNOLOGIES, INC., fka

EQUITYFEED CORPORATION, A Canadian

(Quebec) Corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEWMON ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-22957(RNS/EGT)

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff Scanz Technologies,

Inc., f/k/a EquityFeed Corporation (“Plaintiff’) and Defendants Timothy Sykes, Zachary

Westphal, Jewmon Enterprises, LLC, Millionaire Publishing, LLC, Millionaire Media, LLC, and

Stockstotrade.com, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), and the parties’ respective counsel, that

Plaintiff’s Complaint (D.E. 1) is hereby dismissed as against all Defendants, with prejudice,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Date: August 3, 2021

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 179 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 1 of 2
/s/ Elad D. Botwin

Gustavo D. Lage

Florida Bar No. 972551

Elad D. Botwin

Florida Bar No. 1019163

SQUIRE LAW GROUP, P.A.

301 W. Atlantic Avenue, Suite 5

Delray Beach, FL 33444

Phone: (888) 788-8816

Fax: (786) 577-0425

glage@squirelawgroup.com

ebotwin@squirelawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Scanz Technologies, Inc.

/s/ Raúl B. Mañón

Raúl B. Mañón

Florida Bar No. 18847

SQUIRE PATTION BOGGS (US) LLP

200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4700

Miami, FL 33131

Phone: +1 305-577-7000

raul.manon@squirepb.com

Gabriel Colwell (admitted pro hac vice)

SQUIRE PATTION BOGGS (US) LLP

555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Phone: +1 213-689-5126

gabriel.colwell@squirepb.com

Joseph A. Meckes (admitted pro hac vice)

SQUIRE PATTION BOGGS (US) LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2600

San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone: +1 415-954-0201

joseph.meckes@squirepb.com

Attorneys for Defendants StocksToTrade.com, Inc.

and Zachary Westphal

/s/ Justin B. Elegant

Justin B. Elegant

Florida Bar No. 0134597

Sabrina T. Zarco

Florida Bar No. 1025800

BERGER SINGERMAN LLP

1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900

Miami, FL 33131

Phone: (305) 755-9500

jelegant@bergersingerman.com

szarco@bergersingerman.com

Brett D. Jaffe (admitted pro hac vice)

Steven R. Campbell (admitted pro hac vice)

Reade W. Seligmann (admitted pro hac vice)

Gregg A. Fish (admitted pro hac vice)

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

90 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10016-1387

Phone: 212-210-9400

brett.jaffe@alston.com

steven.campbell@alston.com

reade.seligmann@alston.com

David S. Frist (admitted pro hac vice)

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

One Atlantic Center

1201 West Peachtree Street

Suite 4900

Atlanta, GA 30309-3424

Phone: 404-881-7000

david.frist@alston.com

Attorneys for Defendants Jewmon Enterprises,

LLC, Timothy Sykes, Millionaire Publishing,

LLC, and Millionaire Media, LLC

2

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 179 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2021 Page 2 of 2
#### County of Adams v. Adna H. Bowen.

Filed June 18, 1903.

No. 12,823.

Allowance to Clerk of County Court. Under the authority of chapter 34 of the laws of 1897, the county board may, in the exercise of good faith, make a supplemental allowance of compensation for the services of the clerk of the county court after the services have been rendered.

*406Error to the district court for Adams county: Ed L. Adams, District Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Addison S. Tibbeis, George W. Tibbets*and *G. F. Morey,*for plaintiff in error.

*John M. Ragan, contra.*

Ames, C.

During the year 1901 the defendant in error was county judge of Adams county. In January of that year the county board made an order granting him the sum of $600 as compensation for clerk hire for tire then ensuing year, provided the fees of his office during that time should be sufficient for the payment of the same. The fees and emoluments of the office for the time mentioned exceeded the salary of the county judge by more than $1,100. The allowance was made and a clerk of the court was duly appointed and qualified under the authority of chapter 34 of the .laws of 1897. The only provision of the statute with reference to the payment of the clerk of the county court is section 4 thereof, as follows:

> “The compensation of the clerk of the county court shall be fixed by the board of county commissioners.”

The clerk served throughout the year and on the 13th of January, 1902, the board made an additional allowance for such service in the sum of $125. An appeal from this latter allowance was taken to the district court, where it was affirmed, and from the judgment of affirmance error is prosecuted to this court. The only question is whether the county board had power or jurisdiction to make the allowance. We do not doubt that it had. Neither the time, manner, nor amount of compensation to be allowed to' the clerk is fixed by the statute, but the whole matter is left to the discretion of the county board. Doubtless this discretion is impliedly limited to the exercise of good faith, but there is no suspicion of its absence in this instance. It is apparent from the record that both the labor and emolu*407ments of the office of county judge increased, during the period in question, beyond the expectations of the board. A contingency may readily be imagined in which the service required would not have been obtainable for the compensation at first allowed, in which case its increase by supplemental allowance would have been unavoidable. There is nothing in the statute requiring that the allowance shall be made in' advance of the rendition of the service, nor is there any evident public policy requiring that it should be so made.

. It is recommended that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Hastings and Oldham, CO., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing" opinion, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be

Affirmed.
§ 108.740 Portfolio diversification (“overline” limitation). ( a ) Without SBA's prior written approval, you may provide Financing or a Commitment to a Small Business only if the resulting amount of your aggregate outstanding Financings and Commitments to such Small Business and its Affiliates does not exceed 10 percent of the sum of: ( 1 ) Your Regulatory Capital as of the date of the Financing or Commitment; plus
( 2 ) The total amount of leverage projected in your participation agreement with SBA; plus
( 3 ) Any permitted Distribution(s) you made during the five years preceding the date of the Financing or Commitment which reduced your Regulatory Capital.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, you must measure each outstanding Financing at its current cost plus any amount of the Financing that was previously written off.
[66 FR 28609, May 23, 2001, as amended at 76 FR 63545, Oct. 12, 2011]
§ 71.3 Denial of flood insurance. ( a ) No new flood insurance coverage may be provided on or after October 1, 1983, for any new construction or substantial improvement of a structure located in an area identified as being in the CBRS both as of October 18, 1982, and as of November 16, 1990.
( b ) No new flood insurance coverage may be provided on or after November 16, 1990, for any new construction or substantial improvement of a structure located in any area newly identified as being in the CBRS as of November 16, 1990.
( c ) No new flood insurance coverage may be provided after November 16, 1991, for any new construction or substantial improvement of a structure which is located in an “otherwise protected area.”
( d ) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, new flood insurance coverage may be provided for a structure which is newly constructed or substantially improved in an “otherwise protected area” if the building is used in a manner consistent with the purpose for which the area is protected.
[57 FR 22662, May 29, 1992]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Philip Gay,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Grill Concepts, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Grill Concepts, Inc.



By:

/s/ PHILIP GAYName:

Philip GayTitle:

CEO and Principal Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2007
§ 73.4 Restoration of flood insurance coverage. ( a ) Insurance availability shall be restored to a property upon a finding by the Federal Insurance Administrator of a valid rescission of a declaration of a violation.
( b ) A valid rescission shall be submitted to the Federal Insurance Administrator and shall consist of: ( 1 ) The name of the property owner(s) and an address or legal description of the property sufficient to identify the property and to enable FEMA to identify the previous declaration;
( 2 ) A clear and unequivocal statement by an authorized public body rescinding the declaration and giving the reason(s) for the rescission;
( 3 ) A description of and supporting documentation for the measures taken in lieu of denial of insurance in order to bring the structure into compliance with the local flood plain management regulations; and
( 4 ) A clear statement that the public body rescinding the declaration has the authority to do so and a citation to that authority.
Exhibit 10.28





February 2, 2004

                             Sloan Securities Corp.
                              Nutech Digital, Inc.
                              Consulting Agreement



Nutech Digital Inc will engage Sloan Securities Corp. ("SSC") to raise
$300,000.00 best efforts. The investor(s) will receive common shares issued at
$0.40 per share and two warrants to purchase common shares at $0.75. Upon the
closing date and from the closing proceeds, Sloan Securities Corp. shall receive
cash compensation equal to 10% of the gross proceeds raised from the entities
which SSC introduces to Nutech Digital, Inc. provided a minimum of $250,000 is
raised by SSC. The closing date will be on or before February 4, 2004.


Sloan Securities Corp.                    Nutech Digital Inc.



By:___________________________            By:__________________________
      Authorized Officer                         Lee Kasper
                                             President and Chief Executive
                                                Officer
#### Nicholas Sapara, Appellant-Respondent, v. A. La Sala *&*Bros. Inc., Respondent, and Lajay Estates, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
#### Wells v. Lewis.

Oct. 26, 1945.

Thomas D. Theobald, Jr., for appellant.

Stephens L. Blakely for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Sims

Affirming.

Appellant, Lynn B. Wells, and appellee, Jesse K. Lewis, were rival candidates in the primary election held on August 4, 1945, for the Democratic nomination for the office of Circuit Judge of the 37th Judicial District. Lewis was successful and Wells contested his nomination on two grounds: (a) Lewis was not a resident of the District; (b) Lewis was guilty of corrupt practices. The trial judge sustained a general demurrer to the paragraph of the petition that set out the first ground of contest, because the action was not filed before the primary election as provided in KBS 119.170. Wooton. v. Smith, 288 Ky. 48, 155 S. W. 2d 466. On a hearing of *676the second ground on merits, judgment was entered in favor of Lewis.

No appeal was prosecuted from that judgment, but the day it was rendered’Wells instituted this declaratory judgment action against Lewis. The petition avers that Wells is a legal voter of the District, and as Lewis’ opponent in the primary he took an oath that he would support Lewis in the November election if Lewis was nominated; that Lewis is not a resident of the District and is not eligible to hold the office of circuit judge under Section 130 of the Constitution, and could be removed from office if elected. Wells asked a declaration of the court as to whether Lewis is eligible to hold the office and whether appellant as the defeated candidate is obligated to vote for him.

A special and a general demurrer to the petition were overruled and Lewis filed an answer which is a traverse, Proof was heard and the trial judge found that Lewis was a resident of the District,. the petition was dismissed and Wells appeals.

We do not get to the merits of this controversy, since we are of the opinion that the trial judge should have sustained’ the special demurrer challenging appellant’s right to bring this action. In Ditz v. Zimmer, 231 Ky. 546, 21 S. W. 2d 999, it was held that the Declaratory Judgment Act conferred no right upon residents, taxpayers and citizens to question the eligibility of one nominated in the primary to have his • name go on the ballot in the general election. This court has. many times written that only three persons have the authority to bring a suit to question. the statutory- or constitutional qualifications of a person to hold office,- and those three are: - A person who can -show he is entitled -to the office, the Attorney General, and- the Commonwealth’s Attorney. Wilson v. Tye, 126 Ky. 34, 102 S. W. 856, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 491; Morgan v. Adams, 250 Ky. 441, 63 S.. W. 2d 479; Pratt v. Adams, 251 Ky. 381, 65 S. W. 2d 91; Hart v. Rose, 255 Ky. 576, 75 S. W. 2d 43; Rose v, Epperson, 272 Ky. 765, 115 S. W. 2d 336. See Davis v, Stahl, 287 Ky. 629, 154 S. W. 2d 736, holding, that a citizen and voter has no right as-such-to-file a contest-action in a primary election. Also see two very recent opinions, *677Little v. Bogie, 300 Ky. 668, 190 S. W. 2d 26, and Aubrey v. Oak 300, Ky. 669, 190 S. W. 2d 27.

The judgment is affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.135 Deposit of duties.

When the requirement of § 10.134 has been met the merchandise may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption without deposit of duty when proof of use will result in free entry, or with deposit of duty at the lower rate when proof of use will result in a lower rate of duty.

[T.D. 71-139, 36 FR 10726, June 2, 1971, as amended by T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41166, Oct. 19, 1984]