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

<PAGE>

<S>                                                  <C>
<ARTICLE>                                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               1,051
<SECURITIES>                                         16,387
<RECEIVABLES>                                        47,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          126,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     193,153
<PP&E>                                               971,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                       538,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       665,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                408,704
<BONDS>                                              205,838
<COMMON>                                             (168,358)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         665,536
<SALES>                                              842,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     842,456
<CGS>                                                1,050,035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,142,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   35,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (340,561)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (340,561)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      (14,474)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (355,035)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (3.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (3.43)




</TABLE>
#### §§ 1726.78-1726.124 [Reserved]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Hugo Aguilar v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00680

- CR

Trial court case number: 17

- DCR

- 080285A

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend C ounty

Appellant, Hug o Aguilar, has filed a Third Motion for Extension to Fi l e Appellate Brief.

The motion is gra nted. Appellant ’ s brief is due Se ptember 22, 2022

. No further extensions

will be granted

.

If a ppellant’s brief is not filed by Se ptember 22, 2022

, the case will be abated and remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine (a) whether a ppellant desires to prosecute his appeal; (b) whether a ppellant’s counsel has abandon ed the appeal ; (c) the reason for the failure to file a brief; and ( d) if the a ppellant desires to continue the appeal, a date certain when

a ppellant’s brief will be filed. T EX

. R. A PP . P. 3 8.8(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___________ /s/ Julie Co untiss

_________ Acting individ ually

Date: August 30, 20 22
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 Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert L. Saxe, Chairman of the Board 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), 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.

/s/ Robert L. Saxe
Robert L. Saxe
Chairman of the Board
March 10, 2009
Exhibit 4(b)



 EXHIBIT 4(b) 
 FORM OF POLICY RIDER 
 (RETURN OF PREMIUM) 








			
	



	  	 Home Office located at:

440 Mamaroneck Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528
 Adm. Office located at:
 4333 Edgewood Road N.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499

(319) 355-8511

www.transamericaannuities.com


 GUARANTEED MINIMUM DEATH BENEFIT RIDER 
 If You elect this rider, 100% of Your Policy Value must be in one or more of the designated funds. You can generally transfer between the designated funds as permitted under Your policy; however, You
cannot make transfers as provided for in the base policy to a non-designated fund. 
 The fee for this rider is included in the mortality and
expense risk fee and the administrative charge, which is shown in Section 2 - Policy Data, of the policy to which this rider is attached. 
 The Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit provision in the Death Proceeds Section of the policy to which this rider is attached, is amended to include the addition of the following language: 

The amount of this Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit is equal to 100% of the total premiums paid for this policy, less any Adjusted Withdrawals (as
described below), as of the date of death. 
 A withdrawal as provided in Section 5 of the policy will reduce the Guaranteed Minimum Death
Benefit by an amount referred to as the “Adjusted Withdrawal”. The Adjusted Withdrawal may be a different amount than the gross withdrawal. If at the time of the withdrawal, the Policy Value is greater than or equal to the death proceeds,
the Adjusted Withdrawal will equal the gross withdrawal. If at the time of the withdrawal, the Policy Value is less than the death proceeds, the Adjusted Withdrawal will be greater than the gross withdrawal. 

The Adjusted Withdrawal is equal to the gross withdrawal multiplied by the death proceeds immediately prior to the withdrawal divided by the Policy Value
immediately prior to the withdrawal. The formula is AW = GW x (DP/PV) where: 
  

			
	GW	  	= Gross withdrawal
	DP	  	= Death proceeds prior to the withdrawal = greater of (PV or GMDB)
	PV	  	= Policy Value prior to the withdrawal
	GMDB	  	= Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit prior to the withdrawal

 The death benefit amount cannot be withdrawn as a lump sum. 

The amount of the death benefit will be included in a report sent to You at least once each year until the Annuity Commencement Date as described in
Section 3, Reports to Owner provision, in the policy. 
 This rider is effective on the Policy Date and can only be terminated when the
policy to which this rider is attached terminates, including when the Policy Value becomes zero, or is annuitized. Once terminated the rider fee will also terminate. This rider is subject to all the terms and conditions of the policy not
inconsistent herewith. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this rider and provisions of the policy, the provisions of this rider shall prevail over the provisions of the policy. 

Signed for us at our home office. 
  





 
 NIC12 RGMD80513(NY)
§ 1786.102 Prepayment agreement. Upon approving an application for prepayment under this subpart, the Administrator shall notify the borrower and deliver to the borrower for its execution a prepayment agreement which shall set forth and provide: ( a ) The RUS Notes to be prepaid and when the Discounted Present Value will be calculated.
( b ) The place, date and conditions for closing.
( c ) Agreement that the unadvanced balance of RUS Notes shall be rescinded.
( d ) Agreement that the borrower, or its successors or assigns, shall pay to the Government, as a condition of receiving additional loans or loan guarantees pursuant to titles I and III of the Act, an amount equal to the aggregate of the difference with respect to each of the RUS Notes between the amount outstanding on the RUS Note and the Discounted Present Value of the prepaid RUS Note; with interest accruing quarterly. The interest rates shall be the rates provided in the respective RUS Notes.
( e ) Assurances that the borrower will meet its obligations to any power supplier financed pursuant to the Act.
( f ) Such other terms and conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate.
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 The Navigators Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley A. Galanski, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



---

Stanley
A. Galanski
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 23, 2006



---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alphonzo Lawson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered May 3, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of *608justice, and new trial ordered. Defendant’s conviction was the result of a sale of narcotics made to an undercover police officer. At trial, the defendant raised the defense of entrapment. Although guilt was established by legally sufficient evidence, we are constrained to reverse the judgment of conviction because the defendant was denied a fair trial. During the charge on entrapment the trial court improperly instructed the jury to first consider the merits of that defense and then, if it was rejected, consider the guilt or innocence of the defendant (see *People v Quitsch,*64 AD2d 917; *People v Johnston,*47 AD2d 897). The court also erred when, in response to a jury request for clarification of the law with respect to entrapment it merely reiterated the language of the main charge (see *People v Miller,*6 NY2d 152; *People v Lopez,*73 AD2d 676). The court further prejudiced the defendant by thrice instructing the jury that his criminal record could be used to assess his credibility when the only prior brush with the law revealed at trial involved a traffic infraction. Defendant was also prejudiced by the prosecutor’s comments on summation. The prosecutor implied that the defendant was guilty of uncharged crimes by describing him as . a drug dealer operating out of New York City and by submitting to the jury that the defendant had created his record company as a front and to avoid paying taxes. Although the defense failed to make objection to either the charge to the jury or the prosecutor’s summation, we find their total effect to be so prejudicial as to require a new trial in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15, subd 6, par [a]). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Rabin, JJ., concur.
| **Consolidated Statements of Shareholders' Equity (unaudited) (Parenthetical) (USD $)** | 9 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                                        |           |   |
| Cash dividends per share (in dollars per share)                                         | $ 0.66         | $ 0.58 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 04 -Article 3Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6959260&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
## Breadcrumb

          -  Home 

# Radio Spectrum Measurements of Individual Microwave Ovens - Volume 1

The Radio Spectrum Measurements of Individual Microwave Ovens report was released in March 1994, consisting of Volumes 1 and 2. This report provides results of radio spectrum measurements of 13 individual microwave ovens performed at the NTIA, Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS). Measurements include emission characteristics and time waveforms covering the frequency range 2300-2600 MHZ and oven emission characteristics of harmonic frequency ranges up to the 7th harmonic. Test parameters were varied to identify their impact on test results. These parameter variations include such factors as cooking load, start temperature, oven orientation, and receiver bandwidth. Test procedures of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the International Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR), and additional procedures developed by NTIA and ITS are also discussed.

Spectrum Engineering

Spectrum Management
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. C. James Lombardi, Appellant, v. Vincent R. Mancusi, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator’s conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department (25 A D 2d 718) and on application to the court the remittitur was amended to recite that upon the appeal there were presented and necessarily passed upon the appellant’s contentions that his rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated (25 A D 2d 823). It appears that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was granted and that such appeal is pending. As was pointed out in *People ex rel. Keitt*v. *McMann*(18 N Y 2d 257, 262): '• Departure from traditional orderly proceedings, such as appeal, should be permitted only when dictated * * * by reason of practicality and necessity." This not being a case where no other corrective procedure is available to relator *792habeas corpus is not a proper remedy. (See *Matter of Morhous*v. *New York Supreme Ct.,*293 N. Y. 131.) (Appeal from order of Wyoming County Court, dismissing writ of habeas corpus, following a hearing.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1







OSL HOLDINGS, INC.


60 Dutch Hill Road, Suite 15


Orangeburg, NY 10962


 (480) 335-7351







April 10, 2013












Richardson Patel, LLP


405 Lexington Avenue


49th Floor


New York, NY 10174


Attn: David Feldman







Re:           Issuance of Shares for Legal Services







Dear Mr. Feldman:







This letter confirms our plan to issue to certain attorneys of Richardson & Patel, LLP (the “Firm”), 384,616 shares (the “Shares”) of our common stock (the “Shares”), to be registered on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as consideration for $100,000 (the “Payment Amount”) due to the Firm by OSL Holdings, Inc. for legal services. The legal services were not in connection with any capital raising transaction or with directly or indirectly promoting or maintaining a market for the securities of OSL Holdings, Inc.







Your signature below indicates your acceptance of the Shares in full satisfaction of the Payment Amount.







 



	 	Regards, 






OSL HOLDINGS, INC.


 







By: /s/ Bob Rothenberg


       Bob Rothenberg


       President







 


 

 







ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED:







RICHARDSON & PATEL







By: /s/ David N. Feldman


      David N. Feldman


      Partner
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

          In connection with the quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the nine month period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated: December 23, 2008 | s/Gordon Laschinger________________ |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------|

|   | Gordon Laschinger, Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | And Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------|
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, 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; and

 

(2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
|   | By: /s/ George W. Fort        |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | George W. Fort                |
|   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|   |                          |
|   | Dated: November 10, 2005 |

 

1

----
§ 1.643 What are the requirements for written interrogatories? ( a ) *Motion; limitation.* Except upon agreement of the parties: ( 1 ) A party wishing to propound interrogatories must file a motion under § 1.641(c); and
( 2 ) A party may propound no more than 25 interrogatories, counting discrete subparts as separate interrogatories, unless the ALJ approves a higher number upon a showing of good cause.
( b ) *ALJ order.* The ALJ will issue an order under § 1.641(b) with respect to any discovery motion requesting the use of written interrogatories. The order will: ( 1 ) Grant the motion and approve the use of some or all of the proposed interrogatories; or
( 2 ) Deny the motion.
( c ) *Answers to interrogatories.* Except upon agreement of the parties, the party to whom the proposed interrogatories are directed must file its answers to any interrogatories approved by the ALJ within 15 days after issuance of the order under paragraph (b) of this section. ( 1 ) Each approved interrogatory must be answered separately and fully in writing.
( 2 ) The party or its representative must sign the answers to interrogatories under oath or affirmation.
( d ) *Access to records.* A party's answer to an interrogatory is sufficient when: ( 1 ) The information may be obtained from an examination of records, or from a compilation, abstract, or summary based on such records;
( 2 ) The burden of obtaining the information from the records is substantially the same for all parties;
( 3 ) The answering party specifically identifies the individual records from which the requesting party may obtain the information and where the records are located; and
( 4 ) The answering party provides the requesting party with reasonable opportunity to examine the records and make a copy, compilation, abstract, or summary.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i.) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended July 2, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii.) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                    
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Dario Sacomani                                                 
|                      |  | Dario Sacomani Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer