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

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM      REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS DATED March 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                              133
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                       732
<ALLOWANCES>                          4
<INVENTORY>                         560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   1581
<PP&E>                            19627
<DEPRECIATION>                     5403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    18941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1494
<BONDS>                            1250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            236
<OTHER-SE>                        10749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      18941
<SALES>                            1124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1127
<CGS>                               966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      3040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     56
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (1969)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (1969)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   (1969)
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1969)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.10)




</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.1

Certificate No.        Incorporated under the Laws of the State of Nevada

                                                               Shares
    C XX                                                         - XXX -
  --------                                                     -----------

                      SEE RESTRICTIVE LEGEND ON THE REVERSE
                          SECURECARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                 TOTAL AUTHORIZED SHARE ISSUE 65,000,000 SHARES
                 50,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 COMMON STOCK
                15,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 PREFERRED STOCK
                                  CONSISTING OF
          10,429,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 BLANK CHECK PREFERRED STOCK
            3,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK
            1,570,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK
             1,000 SHARES PAR VALUE, $.001 SERIES C PREFERRED STOCK

This is to Certify that           - SPECIMEN -               is the owner of
                       -------------------------------------

                            -XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (XXXX) -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fully paid and non- assessable shares of the Series C Preferred Stock of
                          SecureCARE Technologies, Inc.

transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder in person or by duly
authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

        Witness, the signatures of its duly authorized officers.

        Dated:




    /s/ NEIL BURLEY                                  /s/ ROBERT WOODROW

        Secretary                                         President
#### Maxim Gashel et al., Respondents, v. Vladimir Z. Vicas, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order entered June 17, 1960, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency, unanimously affirmed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents. It is clear, and it was confirmed upon oral argument, that the conferences and conversations alleged by plaintiffs were not pleaded as specific acts constituting due *753and full performance, but to establish the chronology of events preceding and following the making of the agreement. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### §1906. Exemption of ritual slaughter

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit, abridge, or in any way hinder the religious freedom of any person or group. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, in order to protect freedom of religion, ritual slaughter and the handling or other preparation of livestock for ritual slaughter are exempted from the terms of this chapter. For the purposes of this section the term "ritual slaughter" means slaughter in accordance with section 1902(b) of this title.

(Pub. L. 85–765, §6, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 864.)
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q/A for the period ending October 7, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel A. Messmer, 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 fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Daniel A. Messmer

Daniel A. Messmer 

President and Chief Executive Officer

March 9, 2007
Exhibit 23.2

 

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-23113, 33-24071, 33-34612, 33-35055, 33-34613, 33-41325,33-64852, 33-47454, 33-81430, 33-92288, and 33-101371) and in the registration statementson Forms S-3 (Nos. 33-6116, 33-63399, 333-01919, 333-13883, 333-44597, 333-23843,33-50393, 333-52861, 333-67313, 333-78525, and 333-75520) of UQM Technologies, Inc. of ourreport dated May 19, 2004 relating to the consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows of UQM Technologies, Inc.and subsidiaries for the year ended March 31, 2004, which report appears in the March 31,2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K of UQM Technologies, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP ****
Denver, Colorado 

June 7, 2006
### §5354. Effect of detail or affiliation; travel expenses

(a) Status as a student-employee is not terminated by a temporary detail to or affiliation with another Government or non-Government institution to procure necessary supplementary training or experience pursuant to an order of the head of the agency. A student-employee may receive his stipend and other perquisites provided under this subchapter from the hospital, clinic, or laboratory to which he is assigned or attached for not more than 60 days of a detail or affiliation for each training year, as defined by the head of the agency.

(b) When the detail or affiliation under subsection (a) of this section is to or with another Federal institution, the student-employee is entitled to necessary expenses of travel to and from the institution in accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 472.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 1055. | Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 452, §6, 61 Stat. 728. |

Statutes at Large

In subsection (b), the reference to "subchapter I of chapter 57 of this title" is substituted for the reference to "the Standardized Government Travel Regulations and the provisions of the Subsistence Expense Act of 1926, as amended" as the Subsistence Expense Act of 1926 was repealed by section 9(a) of the Travel Expense Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 167, part of which appeared in former section 842 and is carried into section 5708, and as the authority for the Standardized Government Travel Regulations in former section 840 is carried into section 5707 of subchapter I of chapter 57.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
**Exhibit
        23.1**
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 Crowe
        Chizek and Company LLC
 
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
        Form
        S-8 (No. 333-48204) of Hurco Companies, Inc. of our report dated January
        12,
        2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial
        statement schedule, and Management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal
        control over financial reporting and effectiveness of internal control over
        financial reporting which appears in this Form 10-K of Hurco Companies, Inc.
        as
        of and for the year ended October 31, 2006.
 
 
 /s/Crowe
        Chizek and Company LLC
 
 Indianapolis,
        Indiana
 January
        12, 2007
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135427 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BOBBIE J. BRASHERS, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 135427 

 COA: 279999 

Kalamazoo CC: 06-000638-NI 

DEBORAH J. VANDERROEST,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 28, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

WEAVER, J., dissents from the denial order, would grant leave to appeal, and states 

as follows: 

I dissent from the majority of four’s (Chief Justice Taylor, and Justices Corrigan, 

Young, and Markman’s) denial of plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal requesting 

that this Court reconsider its decision in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004), because 

this Court needs to reexamine the misinterpretation of MCL 500.3135 contained in the 

majority of four’s opinion in Kreiner. I would grant leave to appeal to reconsider and 

correct the majority’s misinterpretation of MCL 500.3135 in Kreiner. 

By importing the concept of permanency of injury into MCL 500.3135—a concept 

that is nowhere referenced in the text of the statute—the majority of four, in Kreiner, 

actively and judicially legislated a permanency and temporal requirement to recover 

noneconomic damages in automobile accident cases.1 The Kreiner interpretation of MCL 

500.3135 is an unrestrained misuse and abuse of the power of interpretation, 

1

 For further analysis of the problems created by the majority of four’s Kreiner opinion, 

see my dissent in Jones v Olson (Docket No. 132385), ___ Mich ___, ___ (2008). 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

masquerading as an exercise in following the Legislature’s intent, which needs to be 

corrected to comport with the actual text of MCL 500.3135. 

I would grant leave to appeal. 

d0506 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 9, 2008 

Clerk
FORM 6-K

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer

                      Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of

                       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



                         For the month of November 2002


                               Luxfer Holdings PLC

                   The Victoria, Harbour City, Salford Quays,
                                Manchester M5 2SP


         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

         Form 20 F...X.............       Form 40 F...............



         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to
the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

         Yes.......................       No........X.............



         If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ............................

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                             Luxfer Holdings PLC

                                             By: /s/ Linda F. Seddon
                                                 --------------------------
                                             Name: Linda F. Seddon
                                             Title: Company Secretary

Dated:  November 7, 2002

<PAGE>

Exhibit Index

1.  Luxfer Holdings PLC Third Quarter Report & Unaudited Condensed Financial
Statements
### §2008l. Eligibility of employees of State, county, or area committee for loans and loan guarantees

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall not prohibit an employee of a State, county or area committee established under section 590h(b)(5) of title 16 or an employee of the Department of Agriculture from obtaining a loan or loan guarantee under subchapter I, II or III of this chapter.

#### (b) Approvals

#### (1) County or area office

In the case of a loan application from an employee in a county or area office, the Farm Service Agency State office shall be responsible for reviewing and approving the application.

#### (2) State office

In the case of a loan application from an employee of a State office, the Farm Service Agency national office shall be responsible for reviewing and approving the application.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §377, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title V, §5321, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 349.)
§ 516.31 Private counsel at government expense. ( a ) *General.* DA personnel, sued in their individual capacity or facing criminal charges as a result of performance of official duties, have no right to employ a private sector counsel at government expense or to expect reimbursement for the same. For proceedings in the United States, a request for employment of counsel at government expense may be approved by DOJ, contingent among other things upon availability of funds and a determination that employment of private counsel at government expense is in the best interests of the United States. (See 28 CFR 50.16). Special rules apply in overseas areas. (See paragraph (e) of this section).
( b ) *Individual request procedures.* The individual will prepare a request that private counsel be employed for him at government expense. The request must also contain the following statement: “I understand that the United States is not required to employ private counsel on my behalf, and that I may be responsible for expenses incurred prior to proper authorization by the Department of the Army or the Department of Justice.”
( c ) *Supervisory and legal adviser procedures.* The request will be submitted through the individual's supervisors, who will make a recommendation and forward the packet to the local SJA or legal adviser. The SJA or legal adviser will prepare his own recommendation and forward the matter to Litigation Division.
( d ) *Chief, Litigation Division, procedures.* If the Chief, Litigation Division, determines that the request for private counsel is meritorious, he will prepare an appropriate recommendation and forward the packet to Civil Division, DOJ, for final approval.
( e ) *Special actions in foreign countries.* Employment of private counsel in foreign proceedings is governed by AR 27-50 (Status of Forces Policies, Procedures, and Information). Under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1037, soldiers, as well as employees or those accompanying the armed forces overseas, may be granted individual counsel in civil and criminal proceedings, under the criteria of AR 27-50.
### §1339c. Feed grains diversion programs for 1964 and subsequent years; feed grain acreage considered wheat acreage and wheat acreage considered feed grain acreage

Effective with the 1964 crop, during any year in which an acreage diversion program is in effect for feed grains, the Secretary shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, permit producers of feed grains to have acreage devoted to the production of feed grains considered as devoted to the production of wheat and producers of wheat to have acreage devoted to the production of wheat considered as devoted to the production of feed grains to such extent and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines will not impair the effective operation of the program for feed grains or wheat. In establishing terms and conditions for permitting wheat to be planted in lieu of oats and rye, the Secretary may take into account the number of feed units per acre of wheat in relation to the number of feed units per acre of oats and rye.

(Pub. L. 87–703, title III, §328, Sept. 27, 1962, 76 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 89–321, title V, §514, Nov. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 1206.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1965—Pub. L. 89–321 authorized the Secretary, in establishing terms and conditions for permitting wheat to be planted in lieu of oats and rye, to take into account the number of feed units per acre of wheat in relation to the number of feed units per acre of oats and rye.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, and not as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which comprises this chapter.
#### STATE v. CLARK

No. 393P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 831

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 September 1997. Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss defendant’s petition for discretionary review dismissed 17 September 1997. Motion by defendant for temporary stay denied 17 September 1997.
#### § 536.69 Retention of file.

After final action has been taken, the settlement authority will retain the file until at least one month after either the period of filing suit or the appeal has expired and until all data has been entered into the database. A paid claim file will be retained until final action has been taken on all other claims arising out of the same incident. If any single claim arising out of the same incident must be forwarded to higher authority for final action, all claims files for that incident will be forwarded at the same time. For further discussion see DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-79.
#### Fred I. Zabriskie et al., Respondents, v. Hyman L. Zoloto, Appellant. Hyman L. Zoloto, Appellant, v. White House Beer Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on September 7, 1960, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion so as to provide for the dismissal of the second affirmative defense and counterclaim only as against defendants, White House Beef Co., Inc., and Siegfried Seligman, and as so modified, affirmed, wtihout costs. The defendant Zoloto, by what is incorrectly denominated a counterclaim, brings into the action as parties defendant White House Beef Co., Inc., and Siegfried Seligman. That he may not do. These defendants were originally parties plaintiff who, after the payment of their claims by New York Central Railroad, moved to discontinue the action in their behalf. That motion was granted, over Zoloto’s objection, and the appeal taken from the order entered thereon was ultimately dismissed. It has thus been adjudicated that the presence in this action of these defendants is not necessary, and Zoloto is bound thereby. He may not now by indirection accomplish that which has been foreclosed to him. In any event it is clear from the record in connection *531with the application for discontinuance that these defendants have expressly renounced any interest in the fee fund retained by New York Central. Even without the presence of these defendants a declaration in this action in favor of either of the contending attorneys would be an adjudication unassailable by any of the parties concerned. Thus, the “ counterclaim ” as to them must be dismissed. However, inasmuch as Zoloto asserts a right to the fund, and by way of the counterclaim seeks a declaration to that effect, that portion of the counterclaim should be permitted to stand. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
From: Anderson, Wes [mailto:Wes.Anderson@ee.doe.gov]

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 5:57 PM

To: Poston, Mona; Edwards, Brenda Subject: Email to file of conversation with Karim Amrane

Memo to file

From: Wes Anderson

Ref: Noting a conversation with Karim Amrane of AHRI

Please place this email in the file that contains all communications with the Department of Energy and interested parties for the rulemaking of Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps and note in the docket.

This email is to inform all interested parties that the Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pump Team had a teleconference with Karim Amrane of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) on September 11, 2008. We discussed past events that occurred during the last Residential Central AC/HP rulemaking. We also requested AHRI’s assistance in collecting and aggregating shipping data and/or other available information that would help DOE to validate its analyses.

Wes Anderson Mechanical Engineer Building Technologies Program Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy U. S. Department of Energy

202-586-7335
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 0 2 4

- 000 1

_____________________________
P EDRO A NDRES B RAVO ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

— Original Jurisdiction

.

April 9, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

.
B ILBREY , M.K. T HOMAS , and L ONG , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Robert David Malove of Robert David Malove, P.A., Fort Lauderdale
, for Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.