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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
"This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Semele
Group Inc.'s Form 10QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10QSB."
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,058,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,237,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,258,963
<PP&E>                                      23,928,190
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,264,290)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,586,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,803,765
<BONDS>                                     43,465,403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,555,167
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,586,164
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,077,972
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,359,413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,281,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,281,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,281,441)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.07)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We also consent to the reference to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8, No. 33-99740 and Form S-8, No. 33-40365)
pertaining to the Power Control Technologies Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan and the
M&F Worldwide 1997 Stock Option Plan of M&F Worldwide Corp. of our report dated
February 10, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of M&F Worldwide Corp. included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                                       Ernst & Young LLP


March 29, 1999
New York, New York
38397.

#### HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION v. HARMON.

Frankum, Judge.

Where, briefly, a petitioner alleges that the defendant sought to obtain a loan from the plaintiff, that the plaintiff required a financial statement, that the defendant knowingly gave a false financial statement which did not include all of the defendant’s debts, that the financial state*321ment was made for the purpose of deceiving the plaintiff, that the plaintiff relied upon such representations, and, had the defendant disclosed all her debts, the plaintiff would not have made the loan, and that in reliance upon the financial statement the plaintiff advanced the defendant $448.43, and suffered a loss in that amount for which the plaintiff sued; the petition sets forth a cause of action for deceit. *Hartridge v. Wesson,*4 Ga. 101; *Anderson v. Macy & Co.,*101 Ga. App. 894 (115 S. E. 2d 430); *Gaultney v. Windham,*99 Ga. App. 800 (109 S. E. 2d 914); *Hinton v. Equitable Loan Co.,*41 Ga. App. 815 (155 S. E. 101). “‘Wilful misrepresentation of a material fact, made to induce another to act, and upon which he does act to his injury, will give a right of action.’ Civil Code (1910), § 4410 *[Code*§ 105-302], Thus, where the basis upon which the contract was entered upon lies in the existence or non-existence of certain material facts, the verity of which needs must be ascertained from the statement of one acquainted with such facts, each of the contracting parties has a right to rely upon the truth of the other’s statements with reference thereto, when such statements relate to matters apparently within the knowledge of the party asserting them; and to do this without checking up the statements with the declarations of other and different persons, in order, by such an investigation, to test their probable truth, [citations].” *Deibert v. McWhorter,*34 Ga. App. 803, 804 (132 S. E. 110). It may be inferred from the allegation, “the plaintiff relied upon such representations of defendant and had the defendant disclosed all of her indebtedness, the plaintiff would not have made the defendant ... a loan,” that the plaintiff was deceived into advancing the money. The trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer.

Decided September 7, 1960.

*Bullock, Yancey & Mitchell, Kyle Yancey, Harris Bullock,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wendell J. Helton, John L. Lee,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.*
#### Sailor J. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-56119.

D.C. No. CV-04-00254-GLT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 27, 2005.

James F. Rumm, Law Offices of Federico C. Sayre, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jill T. Bowers, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Sailor J. Kennedy appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking reversal of decisions entered against him by California state courts. Kennedy also challenges the constitutionality of California’s vexatious litigant statute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Kennedy’s action, and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Guerrero v. Gates,*357 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.2004).

*515The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review Kennedy’s challenge to two prior state court rulings against him. *See Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam,*334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.2003) (“the United States District Court, as a court of original jurisdiction, has no authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). Because Kennedy’s constitutional claims presented in federal court are “inextricably intertwined” with the substance of the state court decisions, review of those claims is also barred under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *See id.*at 900-01.

Kennedy’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
----

ATLANTIS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

---------------------------------------------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 AND 15D-14 OF

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Tim DeHerrera, President, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on form 10-QSB of Atlantis Businessdevelopment Corporation (the "registrant");

(2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to sate a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

(4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of theEvaluation Date;

(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committeeof registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls: and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 16, 2005

***/s/ Tim DeHerrera   ***

Tim DeHerrera

President

 

----
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 Certification
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southwall Technologies Inc.
(the “Company”), for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ms.
Mallorie Burak, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
that:
 
 (1)
  The Report of the Company 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.
  
 Date: November 24,
      2009
              By:
              /s/  Mallorie
      BurakMallorie
      BurakChief
      Accounting Officer
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 31960D0511 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31960D0511

**EAEC Commission: Decision fixing the date on which the Euratom Supply Agency shall take up its duties and approving the Agency Rules of 5 May 1960 determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials **

*
Official Journal 032 , 11/05/1960 P. 0776 - 0776 Finnish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0017 Swedish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0017 Danish special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962 P. 0043 English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962 P. 0045 *

DECISION fixing the date on which the Euratom Supply Agency shall take up its duties and approving the Agency Rules of 5 May 1960 determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Articles 52, 53, 60 and 222 thereof;

Whereas it is for the Commission to fix the date on which the Supply Agency shall take up the duties devolving upon it under the Treaty;

Whereas the introduction of the procedures laid down by the Agency in implementation of the sixth paragraph of Article 60 of the Treaty necessarily entails such transitional measures as will facilitate their progressive application;

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The date on which the Supply Agency shall take up the duties devolving upon it under the Treaty shall be 1 June 1960.

Article 2

Approval is given to the Agency Rules of 5 May 1960 determining the manner in which demand is to be balanced against the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials.

Article 3

The Rules referred to in Article 2 shall enter into force in their entirety on 1 June 1960 for contracts covering the supply of special fissile materials.

As regards contracts for the supply of ores and source materials, implementation of Articles 5 and 6 of these Rules shall be deferred for six months from the date of their entry into force as laid down in the first paragraph of this Article.

Article 4

Contracts relating to the supply of ores or of raw materials shall during that period be submitted to the Commission for its prior approval.

During that period of six months, the market survey shall be conducted and completed according to the procedures laid down in Articles 1 to 4 of the Rules.

Article 5

This Decision shall apply to the Euratom Supply Agency and also to all users and producers of ores, raw materials and special fissile materials.

Done at Brussels, 5 May 1960.

For the Commission

E.M.J.A. SASSEN
Editorial Note on Part 14
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 14 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 14.70 Administrative record of a public hearing before an advisory committee. ( a ) Advice or recommendations of an advisory committee may be given only on matters covered in the administrative record of the committee's proceedings. Except as specified in other FDA regulations, the administrative record consists of all the following items relating to the matter: ( 1 ) Any transcript or recording of an open portion of a meeting.
( 2 ) The minutes of all portions of all meetings, after any deletions under § 14.60(b)(4).
( 3 ) All written submissions to and information considered by the committee.
( 4 ) All reports made by the committee.
( 5 ) Any reports prepared by a consultant under § 14.31(e).
( b ) The record of the proceeding is closed at the time the advisory committee renders its advice or recommendations or at any earlier time specified by the committee or in other sections in this chapter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Cardi, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 17, 1969, which denied the application, without a hearing. Order reversed, on the law, and proceeding remitted to the 'Criminal Term for a hearing. The findings of fact below have not been considered. In our opinion, appellant’s allegations, although improbable, are neither so incredible as a matter of law nor so clearly refuted by the record that he is not entitled to a hearing *(People*v. *Bagley,*23 N Y 2d 814). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 1315
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 82 FR 97041, Dec. 30, 2016.

§ 1315.52 Purpose of hearing. ( a ) The Administrator may, in his sole discretion, hold a hearing for the purpose of receiving factual evidence regarding any one or more issues (to be specified by him) involved in the determination or adjustment of any assessment of national needs.
( b ) If requested by a person applying for or holding a procurement, import, or individual manufacturing quota, the Administrator shall hold a hearing for the purpose of receiving factual evidence regarding the issues involved in the issuance, adjustment, suspension, or denial of the quota to the person, but the Administrator need not hold a hearing on suspension of a quota under § 1301.36 or § 1309.43 of this chapter separate from a hearing on the suspension of registration under that section.
( c ) Extensive argument should not be offered into evidence, but rather presented in opening or closing statements of counsel or in memoranda or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES F-4 AND F-5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1

<S>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                            4,898,838
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    39,893,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                      7,649,799
<INVENTORY>                                      56,223,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 95,877,530
<PP&E>                                           35,012,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                    9,739,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  139,081,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            87,074,316
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 1,000
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    139,081,871
<SALES>                                         153,089,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                153,089,132
<CGS>                                           105,300,456
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   105,300,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 47,116,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    828,470
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6,483,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,533,699)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,533,699)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,533,699)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.75)


</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 13, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-482

Lower Tribunal No. 98-35550

________________

Jerry Neil Alfred,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A case of original jurisdiction.

Jerry Neil Alfred, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

SHEPHERD, C.J.

Petitioner, Jerry Alfred, has filed over twenty appeals and petitions with this

court since 2001. Alfred’s most recent petitions serve as exemplars of his filing
history with this court. The petition in case number 3D15-482 is a successive

petition for redress of manifest injustice that restates verbatim more than half of a

petition previously denied in case number 3D14-2191, and the petition in case

number 3D15-483 is an unauthorized petition to hold the trial court accountable for

a public records request filed around twelve years ago in 2003. 

On March 06, 2015, this court issued an order to show cause why Alfred

should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions,

or petitions relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in case number

98-35550. Alfred responded by admitting that his prior filings were frivolous, but

contended his most recent filings were different, despite successively petitioning

on issues already addressed by this court. 

“[A]ny citizen, including a citizen attacking his or her conviction, abuses the

right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby

diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the

consideration of legitimate claims.” State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999).

After an order to show cause and the opportunity to answer, a court may sanction a

party for repetitious and frivolous pleadings by preventing further filings from that

party. Id.

Upon consideration of the over twenty filings from Alfred before this court,

along with his response to the order to show cause, we find that Alfred has failed to

2
demonstrate good cause for his actions. Based on Alfred’s repeated attempts to

abuse the justice system with frivolous appeals, it is hereby ordered that the Clerk

of the Third District Court of Appeal will refuse to accept any further filings

relating to case number 98-35550, unless they have been reviewed and signed by

an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing. Any

such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Alfred will subject him to

sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida

Department of Corrections for consideration by it of disciplinary action. See

944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013).

3