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-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                              1,190
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       6,649
<ALLOWANCES>                          323
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    8,487
<PP&E>                              8,372
<DEPRECIATION>                      3,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     13,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               9,795
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           26,201
<OTHER-SE>                        (23,760)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       13,007
<SALES>                             7,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    7,804
<CGS>                               6,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       6,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    3,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       90
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,766)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (1,766)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.20)
        

</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 14, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-347 Lower Tribunal No. 16-91 SP

________________ 

### The Personal Injury Clinic, Inc. , 

### a/a/o Odily Maltez, Appellant,
vs. 

### Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company , Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Milena Abreu, Judge. Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., and Chad A. Barr and Dalton L. Gray (Altamonte Springs), for appellant. Shutts & Bowen LLP, Daniel E. Nordby and Jason Gonzalez (Tallahassee), and Garrett A. Tozier (Tampa), for appellee. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Sunshine Rehab & Med. Inc. v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 343 So. 3d 695, 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
# United Stat es Court of Appeals For the First C ircuit

No. 02-1811 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. CHARLIE WEBB, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA The opinion of this court, issued June 17, 2003, should be amended as follows: On page 13, delete lines 1-6, and add “Absent a proper objection from the Defendant to the instructions given . The defendant is limited to arguing plain error pursuant to Rule 52(b). Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d). The [continue with paragraph as is].
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

D. K., by and through his 

Guardian ad Litem Andrea

Kumetz-Coleman; ANDREA No. 06-55988 KUMETZ-COLEMAN; STEVEN KUMETZ,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No.  CV-05-00341-CJC

v.

ORDER HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

January 14, 2009—Pasadena, California

Filed January 30, 2009

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Stephen S. Trott and

Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL

William Lee Buus, Buus Kim Kuo & Tran APC, Newport

Beach, California, for plaintiff-appellee Andrea KumetzColeman, as Guardian ad Litem. 

Andrea Kumetz-Coleman, Westminster, California, pro se. 

Steven Kumetz, Los Angeles, California, pro se. 

1077
Andrew V. Arczynski, Fullerton, California, and Caroline

Zuk, Long Beach, California, for the defendant-appellant. 

ORDER

After we granted permission for this interlocutory appeal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Supreme Court held in Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007), that

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.

§ 1400 et seq., gives parents substantive rights that they may

vindicate pro se. Because the IDEA rights of parents and children are generally coterminous, see Blanchard v. Morton Sch.

Dist., 509 F.3d 934, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2007), the issue certified

in this case, whether the parents may also represent their

minor child’s IDEA rights pro se, is not ripe. Unless and until

the rights or interests of the parents diverge from those of the

child, a ruling on the issue would be advisory. We therefore

vacate the order granting permission for this appeal. Nickert

v. Puget Sound Tug and Barge Co., 480 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir.

1973). After Winkelman was decided, the continued burden,

expense and delay from staying district court proceedings and

pursuing this interlocutory appeal was wholly unwarranted. 

DISMISSED.

1078 D. K. v. HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
### §16101. General civil penalties

(a) General.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, a pipeline carrier providing transportation subject to this part, an officer or agent of that carrier, or a receiver, trustee, lessee, or agent of one of them, knowingly violating this part or an order of the Board under this part is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. Liability under this subsection is incurred for each distinct violation. A separate violation occurs for each day the violation continues.

(b) Recordkeeping and Reporting.—

(1) Records.—A person required under chapter 157 to make, prepare, preserve, or submit to the Board a record concerning transportation subject to this part that does not make, prepare, preserve, or submit that record as required under that chapter, is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of $500 for each violation.

(2) Inspection.—A carrier providing transportation subject to this part, and a lessor, receiver, or trustee of that carrier, violating section 15722, is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of $100 for each violation.

(3) Reports.—A carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part, a lessor, receiver, or trustee of that carrier, and an officer, agent, or employee of one of them, required to make a report to the Board or answer a question that does not make the report or does not specifically, completely, and truthfully answer the question, is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of $100 for each violation.

(4) Continued violation.—A separate violation occurs for each day violation under this subsection continues.

(c) Venue.—Trial in a civil action under this section is in the judicial district in which the carrier has its principal operating office.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §106(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 930; amended Pub. L. 105–102, §2(16), Nov. 20, 1997, 111 Stat. 2205.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### Pub. L. 105–102

This amends 49:16101 to redesignate subsection (d) as (c) because no subsection (c) was enacted.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11901 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

#### Amendments

1997—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 105–102 redesignated subsec. (d) as (c).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
April 5, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEE JOSEPH, Appellant

NO. 14-10-01003-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 97-20571, 97-20703, 97-20663, 97-20822

Conference Calendar

CHRISTOPHER KEITH HANDY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-4499

- - - - - - - - - - February 17, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Christopher Keith Handy, Texas prisoner #774008, has filed five briefs that violate the rules regarding supplemental briefing. F ED . R. A PP . P. 28(j). These briefs are STRICKEN. Handy moves this court for a certificate of appealability ("COA") following the district court's dismissal of his federal habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies--appeals numberedNos. 97-20571, 97-20703, 97-20663, 97-20822 - 2 - 97-20571, 97-20663, and 97-20703. Handy has abandoned the appeals regarding the dismissal for failure to exhaust by failing to brief the issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). COA is DENIED. Handy has also appealed from the district court denial of his motion for the return of his habeas filings (appeals numbered 97-20822, 97-20703 and 97-20663) and the district court's denial of a certificate of appealability (appeal number 97-20663 only). We CONSOLIDATE the other appeals with 97-20571 and 97-20703, which were consolidated on Handy's motion; all of the appeals are without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeals are frivolous, they are DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Handy is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Handy should review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
BRIEFS STRICKEN; COA DENIED; APPEALS CONSOLIDATED AND DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**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 NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
        undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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 operation of the Company.
 
 Date
                  May 15, 2006
              By:*/s/
                  Charles T. Jensen*Name:Charles
                  T. JensenTitle:Chief
                  Executive Officer
 
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
        appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. and will
        be
        retained by NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §20170. Pre-revenue service safety validation plan

(a) Plan Submission.—Any railroad providing new, regularly scheduled, intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, an extension of existing service, or a renewal of service that has been discontinued for more than 180 days shall develop and submit for review a comprehensive pre-revenue service safety validation plan to the Secretary of Transportation not later than 60 days before initiating such revenue service. Such plan shall include pertinent safety milestones and a minimum period of simulated revenue service to ensure operational readiness and that all safety sensitive personnel are properly trained and qualified.

(b) Compliance.—After submitting a plan pursuant to subsection (a), the railroad shall adopt and comply with such plan and may not amend the plan without first notifying the Secretary of the proposed amendment. Revenue service may not begin until the railroad has completed the requirements of its plan, including the minimum simulated service period required by the plan.

(c) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including—

(1) requiring that any identified safety deficiencies be addressed and corrected before the initiation of revenue service; and

(2) establishing appropriate deadlines to enable the Secretary to review and approve the pre-revenue service safety validation plan to ensure that service is not unduly delayed.

(Added Pub. L. 117–58, div. B, title II, §22416(a), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 747.)
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.33

                                    AGREEMENT


         This Agreement is made as of March 10, 2000 between WESTAR FINANCIAL
SERVICES INCORPORATED , a Washington corporation (the "Company") and & CAPITAL,
PARTNERS, L.P. (the "Lender").


                                    Recitals

         A.       The Company executed and delivered to Lender a promissory note
                  in the principal amount of $500,000 dated January 26, 1998
                  (the "Note").

         B.       The Note matured on March 26, 1998 and was extended.

         C.       The Parties are entering into this Agreement to extend the
                  maturity date for payment of the Note.


                                    Agreement

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

-        Maturity Date.  The maturity date of the Note is hereby extended to
          April 30, 2001.

2.       Subordination. The Bank One Security Interest shall be and remain at
all times a lien or charge on the Residual Interest, prior and superior to the
lien or charge of Lender under the Lender Security Agreement.

3.       Acknowledgment of Subordination. Lender acknowledges that it hereby
intentionally waives, relinquishes and subordinates the priority and superiority
of the lien or charge of the Lender Security Agreement in favor of the lien or
charge of the Bank One Security Interest upon the Residual Interest, and
understands that in reliance upon and in consideration of this waiver,
relinquishment and subordination, specific loans and advances are being and will
be made and specific monetary and other obligations are being and will be
entered into by third parties which would not be made or entered into but for
such reliance upon this waiver, relinquishment and subordination. Lender agrees
to execute such further documents as either Bank One or the Company may
reasonably request to reflect, implement or confirm such subordination.

4.       Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the whole agreement between
the parties hereto with respect to its subject matter, and supersedes all prior
agreements whether written or oral.

5.       Binding Effect. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of the
parties.

6.       Continuing Effect. Except as specifically modified or amended hereby,
the Note and the Lender Security Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect in accordance with their terms.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
date first written above.


                                    Page 36
<PAGE>



                                     WESTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.


                                     By:___________________________
                                     R.W. Christensen, Jr.
                                     Its President



                                     & CAPITAL, PARTNERS, L.P.

                                     By:___________________________
                                     David C. Soward
                                     Managing General Partner
(39 Misc. Rep. 637.)

#### GALLAGHER v. GENEVA, W., S. F. & C. L. TRACTION CO.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, Monroe County.

January, 1903.)

1. Infant — Action as Poor Person.

An infant, alleging that she has a cause of action against defendant, may prosecute as a poor person, by permission of the court, though her guardian ad litem, who is her father, is responsible.

Action by Elizabeth Gallagher, an infant, by Michael Gallagher, guardian ad litem, against the Geneva, AVaterloo, Seneca Falls & Cayuga Lake Traction. Company. Motion to vacate .an ex parte order permitting the infant plaintiff to sue as a- poor person.

Denied.

Charles A. Hawley, for the motion.

W. Smith O’Brien, opposed.

DAVY, J.

This is a motion to vacate an ex parte order permitting the infant plaintiff to prosecute this action as a poor person, and for an order requiring security for costs to be given by the plaintiff pursuant to section 3268 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant contends that because the. guardian ad litem is the father of the plaintiff, and is a responsible person to act as guardian, the plaintiff should not be permitted to prosecute as a poor person. I am inclined to think that the mere fact that the father is able to give security for costs has nothing to do with the rights of the infant plaintiff. She sets forth in her complaint a good cause of action, and if she is successful the recovery inures to her benefit, and not to the father, who, for that reason alone, might refuse to give security for costs, and thereby deprive the infant of the right to prosecute her action for damages. It is the poverty of the infant plaintiff, and not of the guardian ad litem, that confers jurisdiction upon the court to permit her to prosecute the action as a poor person. The law *607■contemplates that all persons who are residents of this state shall have access to the courts for the trial of actions, without being required to give security for costs. The 'court has power, even when an appeal is taken by a person acting in another’s right, to dispense with security for costs. It seems to me that the order dispensing with security for costs was a proper exercise of discretion by the learned justice who granted it. The motion, therefore, is denied, with $10 ■costs.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cardima, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry D. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to § 1350 of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., 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; 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/    BARRY D.
MICHAELS                                 
|Barry D. Michaels Chief Financial Officer August 14, 2003









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



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 28.33 Quality control test methods, equipment, and records; review by MSHA; revocation of approval. ( a ) MSHA reserves the right to have its representatives inspect the applicant's quality control test methods, equipment, and records, and to interview any employee or agent of the applicant in regard to quality control test methods, equipment, and records.
( b ) MSHA reserves the right to revoke, for cause, any certificate of approval where it finds that the applicant's quality control test methods, equipment, or records do not ensure effective quality control over the fuse for which the approval was issued.