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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                           1,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        830
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,244
<PP&E>                                          35,736
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,936
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,436
<SALES>                                         24,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,108
<CGS>                                            6,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,784
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    417
<INCOME-TAX>                                        93
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                324
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       324
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
#### THOMAS AND WIFE *v.*HARGRAVE’S ADMINISTRATOR.

Wife’s declaration — assent—res gesta — evidence.

Where a wife is employed as the agent of her husband, her declarations in. executing the agency, are a part of the res gesta and evidence.

But where the wife keeps the keys of the coffeis, and gives or refuses her husband money on •his request, as she thinks prudent, that does not constitute a general agency in money matters. The declarations of a wife in a matter where she does not act as agent for her husband, are inadmissible evidence, unless made in his presence.

Assumpsit for money had and received. Plea non assumpsit and . notice of setoff.

*596
      *N. Wright,*for the plaintiff,

offered a deposition to prove the declarations of Mrs. Hargraves, the intestate’s wife.

*Strait,*

objects, her declarations are not evidence. He cited T *Phil. E.*79; 2 *Stark.*692.

*N. Wright,*contra.

I expect to prove from the circumstancess that the wife was her husband’s agent in this business, and the declarations made in executing the agency: (10 *Am. Jurist*84; 10 *John. R.*44.)

*1-lodges*and *N. Wright,*for tKe plaintiff.

*Strait,*contra.

Wright, J.

You must first prove the agency. That done, what the agent said in executing the agency is part of the res gesta and' admissible. There is in the deposition- evidence tending to prove the agency, such as will be left to a jury. , You can read it,

Wright, J.

to the jury.. To authorize you to regard the declarations of *Mrs. Hargraves*in this case, the plaintiff is bound to satisfy you, that she was her husband’s agent in this business, and made the declarations while performing her,agency; Thisjmay be done by circumstances or by positive proof.' If the evidence only shows; that when money was in, the house the wife kept the keys of the coffers, and refused' to give her husband money as he called, that would not constitute her his general"agent in money matters; and if such be the fact, her declarations, except made in the presence of her husband, should be excluded. If the evidence, under this explanation, satisfies you that any money of Mrs. Thomas came to Hargraves’ hand, the plaintiffs have á right to recover the amount with interest. But if the money was only left with him. for safekeeping, the interest would not begin to run until a demand; or the commencement of the suit.

Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
#### WILDER *v.*LITTLE.

Contract for work — condition precedent — duplicity in pleading.

When on a contract for work, the plea allege that the plaintiff was not ready to have the woik done, and also, that he lefused to accept the work, it is bad for duplicity.

On a contract for work on a frame barn, where no place is designated for doing the work, the plaintiff in declaring must aver as essential to his title, that he provided a frame on which the work could be done, and gave notice to the defendant.

Error to the Common Pleas. The plaintiff counted below in assumpsit upon a special contract of the defendant to pay forty-five dollars, on or before the 30th of March, 1826, in work on a frame barn, for the rent of a piece of land, which he had enjoyed. The breach alleges a readiness to receive the work on a frame barn, but that the defendant had not done it.. Pleas: 1. Non assumpsit.

2. That the defendant was ready to do the work, but the plaintiff had no frame barn on which to do it, but neglected to provide one with a traverse of the plaintiff’s readiness to accept and the defendant’s refusal to do, &c. The plaintiff demurred to the second plea *389for duplicity, which the court overruled, and gave judgment for the defendant. In this it is alleged the court erred.

Br the Court.

That the plaintiff neglected to provide a frame on which to do the work, is one substantive defence: the denial of the plaintiff’s readiness to accept the work, may possibly be the negative of the same defence; but that the plaintiff refused to accept the work, is a distinct matter, repugnant to the denial of his readiness, inasmuch as it supposes the readiness, the offer to perform, and the refusal. There being then two distinct matters in the plea, not dependent upon each other, makes the plea bad for duplicity. If, therefore, the declaration is good, the court was wrong in overruling the demurrer.

Is the declaration good? It sets out the contract, and avers a general readiness to receive the work. This is insufficient; where the performance of the defendant depends upon an act of the plaintiff, he should aver the performan'ce of the act distinctly as essential to his title to recover, with notice to his adversary, unless the act be such that he is bound to take notice of it. We think this case one of that kind; and that the plaintiff was bound to aver the existence, or preparation of the-frame of the barn, on which the work was to be done; and, as the contract designates no place where-it was to be done, that the defendant had notice. We think the omission of this averment vitiates the declaration, and that the demurrer was properly overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael S. Kady, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Quipp, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ MICHAEL S. KADY    
| | Michael S. Kady        
| | Chief Executive Officer

Date:   May 14, 2007
# {In Archive} Conference call follow-up Shaheerah Kelly to: pflynn 11/17/2006 02:14 PM Cc: Ann Lyons From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US To: pflynn@rnrc.net, Cc: Ann Lyons/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.


# Hi. Below is the concern I mentioned on the conference call yesterday regarding using the Vazquez-Beggs Correlation for estimating emissions from the tanks:
Here's a link to a document called Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Oil and Gas Field Production and Processing Operations : http://www.owr.ehnr.state.nc.us/ref/17/ttn/volume02/ii10.pdf Page 10.5-10 of the above document describes the Vazquez-Beggs Correlation. The document states that the correlation is valid only within a set ranges of values and the ranges are listed. The attached document contains emissions information provided to EPA for the Aneth Unit (page 1 is for tank battery 21 and page 2 is for the recycle facility tank battery). It looks like the following site-specific parameters are outside of the ranges for the Vazquez-Beggs Correlation: (1) a specific gravity of 1.38 is used for tabk battery 21 and the Recycle Facility tank battery; (2) a GOR of 9.08 scf/bbl for tank battery 21. Based on this, it looks like the Vazquez-Beggs Correlation might not be appropriate. It would be very helpful if you could provide updated information regarding the site-specific parameters for the tanks to show that the correlation can be used. Thanks.

Shaheerah Kelly U S EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579

### 9 Q AP13 Ct CZ C3 AD T VP 

### UP MdWt. SG CSC 

### GD GOR E Lf Lf Lf Wd 

### My dsves. Cm*M Cm'Rnl 

### com'anl ID.w h F 

### pq pa of 

### Gm alr-t ROWIP ~CU 

### ll ~f51Y *Lr+t 

### blr Ipy 

### blPl 

### am* L?" Z1 1959 

### 715033 41 7 

### 0 131 76 1 '117 25 431 0 075 CO 

### 19 33 7 40 139074 123589 

### 0 10381 

### 908392 95 33715 

### 5 16.8578 5 

### 84881
VRU

HAPS

tolot

## w..m 

# 3wwm Tornl3boam 1

### G 558 

### by NMVOC 

### 231700Tbh NHVDt 

### TO ldlR17 tpy HZS Rnle 0 00D00 

### lblhr 

### 0 lbYVASQUEZ-BEG= 

### CORRE, 

# - FWH

API

### >30 API

### >30 AP1XI0 

# a Q APD CI 

### c2 

## c3 A T VP UP MOI.W~. SO 

## cso 00 GOR 

## e 

# u LI L( 

### PMd bWy degreas ctrm[anl 

### cosstanr cwslant Wru 

### F pzlg pa of Om altXl no lyub 

### mcu R scf,bbl fArekl 

### Wr 

## W DmM 

### anem dead011 

### I01356 

### 359949 41 

### 7 

### 001

### 71 1 

### 137 23 931 0 075 80 80 

### 94 7 40 

### 1 36074 1 35808 0 10381 

### 34 Oat 95 

### 653466 

### 326733 7.45966 YRV

Flash 

### EnddmsGpecEatsd HOW -1 

### Cak E~I(IP~ 

### E*lo= COVP Mole% McdeWT.UdWT. W

### TT Lhbr 'WY



### TohlWesm 74537

### Mw Tolal meam 

### 32673 @j FIMVO3 4 44041

### 32 Ih'h HMVOC 19.6701

### tpy HZ5 Rate 0.OODOI) 

### Ib~hr 0 rpY
EXHIBIT B

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 1 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 2 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 3 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 4 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 5 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 6 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 7 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 8 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 9 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 10 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 11 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 12 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 13 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:20001-3 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 18:19:35 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 14 of 14
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Statement for Adelphia Communication Corp,
for the six months ended September 30, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         130,412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,272,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,603,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,483,179
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           263
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,185,820)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,603,313
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,437
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (175)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.9

                              Envirokare Tech, Inc.
                          2255 Glades Road, Suite 112E
                              Boca Raton, FL 33431
                       Ph. 561-989-9960 Fax. 561-989-8544



May 8, 2001


Charles H. Stein
5345 Pine Tree Drive
Miami Beach, FL  33140


Dear Charles,

This letter will serve to confirm our telephone  conversation  wherein I advised
you of Envirokare Tech,  Inc.'s (the "Company") intent to cancel 400,000 of your
stock  options  due to your  failure to secure  $200,000  in  financing  for the
Company by April 23, 2001 as provided for in our Agreement of March 14, 2001.

You further agree to the cancellation of your Employment  Contract effective May
1, 2001. In lieu of receiving  $20,000 as provided for in the amendment of March
14,  2001 you agree to accept  $2,000 per month  commencing  June 1, 2001 for 10
months.

In the event you are able to arrange  financing  for the  Company in the future,
the Company  agrees to reinstate  your stock  options on a pro rata basis to the
amount of money raised i.e. if you raise $100,000, 200,000 in stock options will
be reinstated.

It is  further  agreed  subject  to Board  approval,  that as of May 1, 2001 you
relinquished  your  titles as  Chairman  of the Board  and CEO and  became  Vice
Chairman.

If this letter is in accordance with our verbal  agreement please indicate so by
signing your name on the line below and returning an executed copy to me.

Envirokare Tech, Inc.                              /S/   CHARLES H. STEIN
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Charles H. Stein

  /S/   STEVE PAPPAS          .
-------------------------------

By:      Steve Pappas
         President
December3, 2014 Mr. Kevin Schlemmer, Chief, EAS Division Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Continuation ofAlaska Airlines' Essential AirService in Alaska at Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat, Docket OST-1998-4899 Dear Mr. Schlemmer: This letter is to express strong supportfor the selection ofAlaska Airlines to continue to provide essential air service to Wrangell and the other small towns listed above. Iwas born and raised here and have traveled many years with Alaska Airlineswhile attending college and for medical appointments. It is much betterthan relying on the AMHS, due to their reduced schedule. The air service connects SoutheastAlaska passengers to major communities of interest, with singleplane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan and Seattle. From these hubs, Wrangell can access the airline's extensive route system throughoutAlaska and the "lower48". The passengerand cargo aircrafts, which Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, provide cargo capacitythat we value. Air Cargo assists in shipping ourassorted seafood out to buyers around the country. In our region, this benefits the economically disadvantaged state we are in since the lumber industry has immensely declined in the mid-90s. Furthermore, Alaska Airlines aircrafts are equipped with Required Navigation Performance Technology, which enables reliablejetservice during our inclementwinter weather. It reduces diversions and cancellations and, in turn, makes it convenient for people and goods to arrive to and from Wrangell. Alaska Airlines is especially helpful when traveling to medical appointments. Simply put, Alaska Airlines' service is critical to the people and economy ofWrangell. Ifully support the application forAlaska Airlines to provide Essential AirService here, including the other remote communities listed above. Sincerely, 

# CjtdJrb

# 71na-ffJ Luella Knapp
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 of Naturade, Inc. (the "Company") fully complied with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

|/s/ Bill D. StewartBill D. Stewart Chief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2003           |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Stephen M. KasprisinStephen M. Kasprisin Chief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2003 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### The State *v.*Dodd.

*Bastardy.*

(Decided December 16, 1913.

64 South. 169.)

*Bastardy; Appeal; Assignment of Error; Necessity.*— Bastardy-being but quasi criminal, it is necessary, on appeal, that errors be assigned and in the absence of such assignment on the record, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal from Winston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Curtis.

Bastardy proceedings in the name of the State against William0Dodd. From an order discharging the defendant, the state appeals.

Dismissed.

Bobert C. Buiokell, Attorney General, for the state.

Bax & Cooner, for appellee. There are no errors assigned of record and the appeal should be dismissed.

*66• THOMAS, J. —

This is an appeal, in the name of the state, taken under section 6388 of the Code by the complainant in a bastardy case from a judgment of the circuit court discharging' the defendant. No errors are here assigned. Consequently the judgment below must be and is *affirmed.*— Williams *v. State,*117 Ala. 199, 23 South. 42; *Perry v. State,*1 Ala. App. 253, 55 South. 1035.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS,

RELATOR. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00099

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against

the Honorable Sue Kurita , Judge of the County Court at Law No. 6 , El Paso County , Texas, and

concludes that Relater’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the

petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14 TH DAY OF JUNE , 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arrow Resources
Development, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended on June 30,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Peter Frugone, 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 to my knowledge:




(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 Company.






/s/
Peter Frugone


Peter
Frugone


Date: August
23, 2010.