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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 29,
1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                           2,941
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                       410
<INVENTORY>                                     30,787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,595
<PP&E>                                         351,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                 161,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 702,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,680
<BONDS>                                        439,453
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,055
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   702,396
<SALES>                                        773,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               773,763
<CGS>                                          435,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  435,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               227,293
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,699
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### §851. Declaration of policy

It is declared to be the policy of Congress to insure the maintenance of an adequate supply of anti-hog-cholera serum and hog-cholera virus by regulating the marketing of such serum and virus in interstate and foreign commerce, and to prevent undue and excessive fluctuations and unfair methods of competition and unfair trade practices in such marketing.

(Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §56, 49 Stat. 781.)
#### Hazel A. Bullock, Appellant, v. Harold L. Bullock, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs and disbursements and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: The complaint should not have been dismissed because it states a prima facie ease. Under its allegations the plaintiff would be entitled to give the necessary evidence to establish her cause of action. *(Coatsworth*v. *Lehigh Val. Ry. Co.,*156 N. Y. 451, 457 ; 5 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, 32, 33; *Breakey*v. *Lake Placid Co.,*271 App. Div. 586.) The separation agreement sued upon provides that the $10 weekly payments for the daughter’s support are based on defendant’s $60 weekly income and that “these payments are subject to future adjustment as his income may increase or decrease.” The complaint alleges that defendant failed to pay an increase in the weekly payments based upon his earnings during the past six years. From this allegation and the provisions of the contract a clear inference may be drawn that defendant’s income had increased and that he had failed to adjust the payments. Although the agreement is not free from ambiguity, it cannot be held as a matter of law that it is too vague or indefinite to be enforcible. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice to the rights of defendant to proceed upon the counterclaim in the answer.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpem and Henry, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32


            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE & FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of CLX Energy,
Inc. for the year ended in September 30, 2003, I, E. J. Henderson, President and
Chief Financial Officer of CLX Energy, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1)  such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of CLX Energy, Inc. for the year ended
     September 30, 2003, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of CLX
     Energy, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CLX
     Energy, Inc.

                              /s/ E.J. Henderson
                              ----------------------------------------
                              E.J. Henderson, President &
                              Chief Financial Officer


Date:  December 23, 2003



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


<PAGE>
### §7716. Recovery of compensation for unauthorized activities

#### (a) Recovery action

The owner of any plant, plant biological control organism, plant product, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary under section 7714 or 7715 of this title may bring an action against the United States to recover just compensation for the destruction or disposal of the plant, plant biological control organism, plant product, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance (not including compensation for loss due to delays incident to determining eligibility for importation, entry, exportation, movement in interstate commerce, or release into the environment), but only if the owner establishes that the destruction or disposal was not authorized under this chapter.

#### (b) Time for action; location

An action under this section shall be brought not later than 1 year after the destruction or disposal of the plant, plant biological control organism, plant product, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance involved. The action may be brought in any United States district court where the owner is found, resides, transacts business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §416, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 447.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 438, known as the Plant Protection Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.
#### In the Matter of Anthony Copernico, Appellant, v Elizabeth Copernico, Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 22, 1978, which, upon renewal and reconsideration, adhered to the original determination granting custody of the parties’ son to his father and custody of their daughter to the mother. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding to determine both custody and child support. Under the circumstances presented in this case, the order appealed from is not a final order of disposition and permission to appeal has not been granted. In any event, the evidence which the parties would have us review is, by now, stale. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1997
<CASH>                                         388,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,566,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   262,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,576,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,786,000
<PP&E>                                       8,814,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,354,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,813,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,451,000
<BONDS>                                      5,781,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,292,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       297,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,992,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,813,000
<SALES>                                      6,644,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,644,000
<CGS>                                        4,684,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,684,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,170,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             244,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                546,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   186,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            360,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   360,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In Re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation

MDL Docket No. 2302

This Document Relates To: Case No. 11 C 9308

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Texas Instruments

Incorporated, Case No. 14 C 1544 (N.D. Ill.)

(Holderman)

ORDER

Status hearing held. Pursuant to the open court discussion on 9/18/2014, the court 

suspends the default requirements of the Local Patent Rules while the parties conduct initial 

discovery focusing on damages and indirect infringement issues. By agreement, Innovatio will

by 9/25/2014 identify the claims of the patents-in-suit asserted against Texas Instruments (“TI”). 

The parties further agree that, they will proceed immediately with initial discovery directed to 

damages, notice, and indirect infringement issues until 12/18/2014. During this initial discovery 

period, the parties will also focus on the issues of: (1) the marking and notice requirements of 35 

U.S.C. § 287, and (2) TI’s potential liability for indirect infringement based on foreign sales. 

The parties are encouraged to enter into stipulations to streamline the resolution of the issues in 

the initial discovery phase.

The case is set for a report on status at 9:00 a.m. 12/18/2014 to address further the 

scheduling of the case.

ENTER:

_______________________________

JAMES F. HOLDERMAN

District Judge, United States District Court

Date: September 18, 2014

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 1164 Filed: 09/18/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:47980
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I, Lawrence
Fensterstock, certify that: 1.
I have reviewed
  this annual report on Form 10-KSB of CreditRiskMonitor.com, 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;3.
Based on my
  knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
  in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
  condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer
  as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The small
  business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for
  establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
  in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [***Omitted pursuant to
  extended compliance period] for the small business issuer and have:a)
Designed such
  disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
  procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
  information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
  subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
  during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
[***Omitted
  pursuant to extended compliance period];c)
Evaluated the
  effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and
  procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
  period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
Disclosed in this
  report any change in the small business issuers internal controls over
  financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
  recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in
  the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
  likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control
  over financial reporting; and    5.
The small
  business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
  most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
  small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small
  business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):a)
All significant
  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
  control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
  affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and
  report financial information; andb)
Any fraud,
  whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
  a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over
  financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007
By: /s/
Lawrence FensterstockLawrence FensterstockChief Financial
  Officer
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.69 Claims not payable. A claim is not payable if it is: ( a ) Payable under any other provision of the law.
( b ) Caused wholly or partly by a negligent or wrongful act of the claimant, the claimant's agent, or employee.
( c ) A subrogated claim.
( d ) Recoverable from other sources such as an insurance policy, or recovered from action under Article 139, UCMJ.
( e ) For pain and suffering or other general damages.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83695, Nov. 22, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         761,573
<SECURITIES>                                 2,202,304
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,652
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,842,304
<PP&E>                                         678,213
<DEPRECIATION>                                 604,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,195,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          722,840
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        94,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,365,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,195,364
<SALES>                                        398,793
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,444,810
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               205,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,239,235
<INCOME-TAX>                                   435,651
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            803,584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   803,584
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000315958
<NAME>                        NEW GENERATION FOODS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,963,394
<SECURITIES>                                   5,429
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,986,097
<PP&E>                                         36,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                 19,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,002,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          56,311
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,643,333
<COMMON>                                       399,830
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,002,758
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               158,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (158,089)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                471,650
<INCOME-TAX>                                   265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   471,385
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.18



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6869

JIMMY D. COVINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-1093-1) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 6, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy D. Covington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy D. Covington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002). Covington’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Covington that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Covington failed to timely object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Covington has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §606. Repealed. Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §34, 49 Stat. 775

Section, act May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, §6, 48 Stat. 33, related to option contracts.