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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           5,139
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,295
<INVENTORY>                                      3,365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,092
<PP&E>                                          12,906
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,334
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            72
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,918
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,289
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,770
<INCOME-TAX>                                       356
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (1566)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,980
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96
        

</TABLE>
#### Evans *v.*Callaway, deputy sheriff, for use, etc., *et al.*

August 14, 1913.

Action upon bond. Before Judge Walker. Wilkes superior court. February 5, 1912.

*Colley & Colley,*for plaintiff in error.

*I. T. Inin Jr.,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

Certain justice court executions in favor of Arnold Grocery Company against J. R. Evans were levied on described goods as the property of the defendant in fi. fa. Affidavits of illegality were interposed, and in order to get possession of the property the defendant executed and delivered to the levying officer bonds conditioned to deliver the property “at the timé and place for sale,” in the event that the illegalities “should be dismissed by the court or withdrawn.” The property was then delivered to the defendant, who afterwards sold or otherwise disposed of it so that he could not produce it in terms of the bonds. In the superior court the levying officer, for the use of the plaintiff in fi. fa., instituted suit on the bonds for the amount due* on the fi. fas., which was less than the value of the property levied on. The defendant (the principal in the bonds) interposed a plea which, as amended, admitted what has just been stated, and set up, in substance, the following: The ground of illegality was that the defendant had not been served in the suits in the justice court. While the illegality cases were pending on appeal in the superior court, and before the term convened, the defendant and the attorney of plaintiff agreed upon a settlement of the cases. Under the agreement the defendant “was to pay cash $100,” and the attorney “was to stop all further costs, and was to accept rent notes for the balance, and upon this was to mark the said case settled.” The defendant paid the $100, and the attorney “agreed to carry out the other terms of the contract,” and, relying on such promise, defendant did not attend court; but “instead of carrying out this contract, said plaintiff by its attorney dismissed” the affidavits of illegality, and “refused to accept rent notes or abide said contract.” The defendant alleges that it “is inequitable not to enforce said agreement,” and it is prayed that the “agreement be enforced and said cases be reinstated in the court,” and the issue tried, and that in the meantime the suit on the bonds be enjoined. *Eeld:*

1. Construed in its entirety and in the light of the prayers, the object of this portion of the plea was to set aside the judgment of the superior court dismissing the illegality cases, and to reinstate them for trial, and to enjoin the suit on the forthcoming bonds.

2. The attack made upon the judgment dismissing the illegality cases, in the plea of the defendant in the suit by the levying officer on the forthcoming bonds, was merely a collateral attack, and would not suffice as a basis for setting aside the judgments or for the grant of injunction. *Porter*v. *Rountree,*111 *Ga.*369 (36 S. E. 761) ; *Alabama Great Southern R. Co.*v. *Hill,*139 *Ga.*224 (76 S. E. ,1003).

3. There was no error in striking th'e plea.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
H. Res. 1099

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 8, 2006.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period 

of limitations while such claims are pending, with the Senate 

amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 

intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the 

chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with 

the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 

Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment 

and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall 

be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by 

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion except one motion to amend, which shall be 
2

•HRES 1099 EH 

separately debatable for five minutes by the proponent and 

five minutes by an opponent. 

Attest:

Clerk.
159 So.2d 285

#### Mrs. Marion W. GILLAN et al. v. Shirley T. JONES et al.

No. 47016.

Jan. 20, 1964.

In re: Mrs. Marion W. Gillan et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to-the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Madison. 157 So.2d 598.

Writ denied. No error of law under the facts found by Court of Appeal.
# Subpart 3032.000—Scope of Part

**Parent topic:**PART 3032—CONTRACT FINANCING

## 3032.003 Simplified acquisition procedures financing.

Contract financing may be permitted for purchases made under the authority of (FAR) 48 CFR part 13. This authority is delegated to COCO and may not be redelegated.   

## 3032.006 Reduction or suspension of contract payments upon finding of fraud.

## 3032.006-2 Definition.

The CPO is the DHS remedy coordination official (RCO).   

## 3032.006-3 Responsibilities.

(a) The CPO is authorized to establish specific procedures. 

(b) Reports shall be made through the HCA to the CPO.
Searched for **http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic02.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic02.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 3(f)

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT                     [STAMP]
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION

       ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Laws of the State of Delaware,

       DOES HEREBY CERTIFY;

       FIRST:  That Article FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation be and
it hereby is amended to read as follows:

       FOURTH: The total number of shares to stock which the corporation shall
               have the authority to issue is 50,000,000, of which 40,000,000
               shares shall be Common Stock, $.01 par value, and 10,000,000
               shares shall be Preferred Stock, $.01 par value. The Preferred
               Stock may be divided into, and may be issued from time to time
               in, one or more series. The board of directors is authorized from
               time to time to establish and designate one or more series of
               Preferred Stock, to fix and determine the variations in the
               relative rights and preferences as between the different series,
               and to fix and alter the number of shares comprising any such
               series and the designation thereof.

       SECOND: That the amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION has caused this
certificate to be signed by a Vice President, as of the 8/th/ day of February,
1985, and attested by its Assistant Secretary.

                                              ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION

                                              By  /s/ Henry Burkhardt
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Vice President, Henry Burkhardt


ATTESTED:

Cameron Read, Assistant Secretary
----------------------------------
Assistant Secretary, Cameron Read
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INDEX

\

DEPTH
GRADIENTS
Meters Feet
fo) (>

20 65.6

Maximum Depth

16°00'

| 40°00'

BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR INTERVAL 2 METERS
WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 1 METER CONTOURS
DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER

39°30'
76°00'

TRISH

/
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Techdyne, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David L. Watts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
the Company.


                                   /s/ David L. Watts
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   David L. Watts
                                   Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
#### § 996.3 Crop year.

*Crop year* means the calendar year in which the peanuts were planted as documented by the applicant for inspection.

[81 FR 50287, Aug. 1, 2016]
ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0327

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STEVEN ERIC WALKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve his opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2024

08/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0327
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION 

CINCINNATI INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CV-3:06-CV-733-MHT

 ) 

JOSEPH DONALD PRATHER and ) 

LINDA PRATHER ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

TO: CLERK OF COURT 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned has on the 9th day of April 2007, 

served on counsel for all parties the following documents: 

(XX) Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Admissions propounded upon 

Defendant, Linda Prather 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 __/s/ Jennifer T. Dewees

 Jennifer T. Dewees #ASB1265S35J

Attorney for Cincinnati Insurance Company 

911 Park Place Tower 

2001 Park Place North 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

205.251.9958 

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 21 Filed 04/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I, hereby, certify that I have on this the 9th day of April, 2007, I electronically 

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the following: 

Timothy L. Dillard 

Dillard and Associates, LLC 

The Berry Building, Suite 400 

2015 Second Avenue North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

205-251-2823 

dillard&horn@aol.com 

Stephen D. Heninger 

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC 

P.O. Box 11310 

Birmingham, AL 35202 

205-326-3336 

steph@hgdlawfirm.com 

Steven Bullard 

1405 16th Place 

Valley, AL 36854 

Service by Mail 

This, the 9th day of April, 2007. 

 /s/ Jennifer T. Dewees

 Jennifer T. Dewees #ASB1265S35J 

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 21 Filed 04/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
PART ll, ITEM 6, EXHIBIT II.

                               EGAN SYSTEMS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE



Computation of net loss per share:

The following data show the amounts used in computing net loss per share and the
effect  on net loss and the  weighted  average  number  of  shares  of  dilutive
potential common stock.

                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                            March 31,
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                       2001            2000
                                                   ------------    ------------




Net loss available to common stockholders          $    (80,064)   $   (124,094)
                                                   ============    ============


Weighted average number of common shares in
 primary EPS                                         19,646,652      18,813,319

Effect of dilutive securities                           100,000         200,000
                                                   ------------    ------------

Weighted average number of common shares and
 dilutive potential common stock used in
 fully diluted EPS                                   19,746,652      19,013,319
                                                   ============    ============

Net loss per common share:

 Basic and fully diluted                           $     (0.004)   $     (0.007)
                                                   ============    ============




For 2001 and 2000,  the  effect of  dilutive  securities  were not  included  in
computing fully diluted EPS because their effects are anti-dilutive.







                                       10
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            3023
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,947
<PP&E>                                       5,132,052
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,227,709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,171,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,219
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,171,753
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,412
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (64,190)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
2007-1958.

#### State v. Reed.

Lucas App. No. L-06-1351, 2007-Ohio-3106. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C. J., and Pfeifer and Cupp, JJ., dissent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES TYRONE EDWARDS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0088-CB-M

LT. LORETTA HOLLAND, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been

no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as

the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and

is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Alabama.

DONE this 15th day of August, 2006.

s/ Charles R. Butler, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 7 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:06-cv-00088-CB-M Document 8 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 3032.000—Scope of Part

Parent topic: PART 3032—CONTRACT FINANCING

3032.003 Simplified acquisition procedures financing.

Contract financing may be permitted for purchases made under the authority of (FAR) 48 CFR part

13. This authority is delegated to COCO and may not be redelegated.

3032.006 Reduction or suspension of contract payments

upon finding of fraud.

3032.006-2 Definition.

The CPO is the DHS remedy coordination official (RCO).

3032.006-3 Responsibilities.

(a) The CPO is authorized to establish specific procedures.

(b) Reports shall be made through the HCA to the CPO.
#### § 1042.605 Enforcement procedures.

The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 10 CFR part 1040, subparts G and H.
DENY ; and Opinion Filed April 22 , 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00437
- CV IN RE JAMES MCCOY , Relator Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 13955
- B



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion by Justice Fillmore Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he contends the trial court has violated a ministerial duty by failing to rule on his motion to compel service of process on William Hill. By order dated April 9, 2014, the Court requested and received a clerk’s record from the trial court. The clerk’s record reflects that the tri al court issued citation to William Hill on January 7, 2014 , at the address reflected in the amended petition filed by relator in the trial court. The clerk’s record further reflects that the sheriff of Dallas County filed a return of service indicating t hat citation could not be served on William Hill because he no longer worked at the listed address. Because the trial court has taken the action relator has requested, the issue presented in relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is moot. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. , 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings.”); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez , 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (stating that, for a contro versy to be justiciable, there must be a real– 2

– controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought); Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia , 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (court will not issue mandamus if it would be useless or u navailing)

. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petition for writ of mandamus.

140437F.P05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv737-WKW

)

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of motion to mediation (Doc. # 21) filed December 12, 2006, and

for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is DENIED pursuant to “Notice

Concerning Temporary Suspension of Magistrate Judge Mediation.” The Clerk of the Court

is DIRECTED to attach a copy of said notice to this order and send to all parties in this

action.

DONE, this 13th day of December, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 22 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 3011.1—Selecting and Developing Requirements Documents

**Parent topic:**PART 3011—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

## 3011.103 Market acceptance.

(a) Contracting officers may act on behalf of the head of the agency in this subpart only. Contracting officers may, under appropriate circumstances, require offerors to make the required demonstrations.