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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ALLEN
TELECOM'S JUNE 30, 1999 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,315)
<INVENTORY>                                     89,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               204,416
<PP&E>                                         118,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,528)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,138
<BONDS>                                        117,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,751
<OTHER-SE>                                     213,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,604
<SALES>                                        153,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               153,414
<CGS>                                        (107,827)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (107,827)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (42,705)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (212)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,992)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,419)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,363
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       944
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .03<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The Earnings per Share amounts have been calculated in accordance with the
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings
per Share." The above captions for primary and fully diluted include the basic
and diluted EPS amounts, respectively.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### § 102-117.75 How do I reference the rate tender on transportation documents?

To ensure proper reference of a rate tender on all shipments, you must show the applicable rate tender number and carrier identification on all transportation documents, such as, section 13712 quotation, “ABC Transportation Company, Tender Number * * *”.
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned officer of Acme United Corporation (the "Company") hereby
certifies to my knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed a part of the Report or
"filed" for any purpose whatsoever.


By          /s/ PAUL G. DRISCOLL
         ------------------------------
                Paul G. Driscoll
               Vice President and
             Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  August 14, 2009



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Acme United Corporation and will
be retained by Acme United Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23753-MOORE/LOUIS

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Stephanie A. Casey, of the law firm Colson Hicks Eidson, 

P.A. appears as counsel for Defendant Naomi Osaka, and requests that all papers served in this 

case also be delivered to and served at the address set forth below. 

Dated: April 17, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted,

COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 476-7400

Facsimile: (305) 476-7444

By: Stephanie Casey

Stephanie A. Casey

Florida Bar No. 97483

Email: scasey@colson.com

 Attorney for Defendant Naomi Osaka

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32 (a)

                            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 this Yearly Report of NMXS.com, Inc. (the "Company")  on
Form  10-KSB  for  the  year ending December 31,  2003,  as  filed and amended
with  the Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I, Richard  Govatski, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certifies  to  the best  of  his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/ Richard Govatski
--------------------
Richard Govatski
Chief Executive Officer

December 6, 2004
#### C. B. Bickel et al., appellees, v. Warren Dutcher et al., appellees, Impleaded with Elizabeth Galligher et al., appellants.

Filed November 8, 1894.

No. 5188.

Review: SupproiENoy op Evidence: Mechanics’ Liens: Mortgages. Ia this case there was presented on appeal no question save that of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain *573the findings of the district court. The proofs upon examination having been' found fully to justify the conclusions questioned, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Wakeley, J.

*David Van Etten,*for appellants.

*Howard B. Smith, George W. Coveil, Rich, O’Neill & Sears, GeorgS F. Brown, J. L. Kaley, L. B. Copeland,*and *Bartlett,' Crane & Baldrige,*for appellees.

Ryan, C.

The appellee's C. B. Biekel & Sons commenced this action in the district court of Douglas county for the foreclosure of a subcontractor’s lien on a building erected by the principal contractor, Warren Dutcher, for the appellants Elizabeth and Theodore Galligher. The appellees the Lewis Investment Company and Jane E. Winchester were mortgagees; the other appellees, aside from Warren Dutcher, were subcontractors. The district court established as first liens between the above described parties the mortgage of the Lewis Investment Company and that of Jane E. Winchester. No serious contention is made as to this, and there should be none whatever, for each of these mortgages was filed for record before any right of,contractor or subcontractor had its inception.

In the preliminary stages of the controversy in this court there was necessitated the settlement of the question whether or not this court on motion would require the appellees to supply as part of appellant’s bill of exceptions the plans and specifications in accordance with which the aforesaid building should have been erected. This motion was overruled. *(Bickel v. Dutcher,*35 Neb., 761.) There seems to have been referred to all through the trial these plans and specifications by witnesses for the purpose of il*574lustrating oral testimony given, though, as a matter of fact, it is nowhere discoverable when these plans and specifications were formally introduced in evidence. The absence of these plans and specifications is especially important to the appellants’ claim for damages on account of the alleged departure therefrom and the therefore improper manner in which the contractor and subcontractors constructed the building, as against which they claim a lien. Notwithstanding this difficulty, a careful examination of the entire record as presented has been made, and all the testimony adduced has been read, with the result that on all points the findings of the district court have been found sustained by the proofs. As there is presented no question but that of the sufficiency of the evidence for this purpose the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Irvine, C., not sitting.
0-cr-06240-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
0-cr-06240-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
0-cr-06240-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
0-cr-06240-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2000 P
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION





I,   
John F. Marchese, certify that:





1. 
 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Millennium Prime,
Inc.;





2.  
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
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(s) 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 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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(s) 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.





Date:
      February 11, 2010
                By:
                /s/
      John F. MarcheseMillennium
      Prime, Inc.CEO
      and principal
                  executive
      officer
#### DOROTHY J. ACKER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT E. ACKER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF, v. JOSEPH SKROTSKY, TRADING AS METRO PRINTING SERVICE, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division

Decided April 30, 1951.

*376
      *Mr. Henry F. Schenk,*attorney for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Biker, Emery & Danzig {Mr. Charles W. Eappes, Jr.,*appearing), attorneys for defendant.

Stein, J. S. 0.

I consider Dorothy J. Acker individually, in view of her testimony which I have read and examined, taken before Alexander T. Schenk, Esq, master of this court, as a necessary party in the accounting proceedings and the exceptions thereto now pending before the court.

According to her testimony Miss Acker now takes the position that she and Skrotsky as partners took over from the terminated partnership in such way that she has an individual interest therein and her presence in her individual capacity becomes necessary in order to avoid multiplicity of suits. *Schlicher v. Vogel,*59 *N. J. Eq.*351 *(Ch.*1900).

Under *Buie*3:21 parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of 'its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. *Maddox v. Horne,*7 *N. J. Super.*15 *(App. Div.*1950).

Additionally, Dorothy J. Acker is a resident of the State of Yew York and not amenable to the process of this court. *377Since it only recently became apparent that Dorothy J. Acker is a necessary party in order that there may be a full and complete determination of all issues before the court, the motion of the defendant will be granted and an order will be entered staying the further proceedings until such time as Dorothy J. Acker will appear in the proceedings in her individual capacity.

The motion to amend the answer setting forth an additional defense alleging that on October 10, 1947, the assets of the partnership were transferred to a newly created partnership consisting of Dorothy J. Acker and the defendant, and that either no accounting is due plaintiff as the transfer was made with the consent of all parties in interest, or that such accounting as may be required is due from Dorothy J. Acker individually and the defendant as members of such new partnership, and to take such other steps in this matter as the defendant may be advised, will be allowed.
##### 



3 4




---



##### 



Supplemental Agreement New Guarantor Guarantor Guarantors Company
 Indenture Trustee 3 4 Notes Original Agreements, Agreement
      ARTICLE 1
 Definitions.
 1




---



##### 



ARTICLE 2
 Guarantees.
        1




---



##### 



Limitation on Guarantor Liability.
  Execution and Delivery of Note Guarantee.
    2




---



##### 



Guarantors May Consolidate, etc., on Certain Terms.
       3




---



##### 



Releases.
        Withholding Taxes.
  4




---



##### 



Relevant Jurisdiction Additional Amounts
         5




---



##### 



ARTICLE 3
 Notices.
      No Personal Liability of Directors, Officers, Employees and Stockholders.
  6




---



##### 



Governing Law.
  No Adverse Interpretation of Other Agreements.
  Successors.
  JURISDICTION.
  Waiver of Immunity.
  7




---



##### 



Process Agent.
 Process Agent
 Severability.
  Currency Indemnity.
   8




---



##### 



Currency Calculation.
  Counterpart Originals.
  Headings, etc.
   9




---



##### 



NEW GUARANTOR:STATS CHIPPAC (THAILAND) LIMITEDBy
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Director OTHER GUARANTORS:STATS CHIPPAC, INC.By
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer STATS CHIPPAC TEST SERVICES, INC.By
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Director STATS HOLDINGS LIMITEDBy
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Authorized Signatory




---



##### 



STATS CHIPPAC (BARBADOS) LTD.By
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Authorized Signatory STATS CHIPPAC (BVI) LIMITEDBy
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Authorized Signatory STATS CHIPPAC MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.By
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Director CHIPPAC INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITEDBy
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Authorized Signatory CHIPPAC LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L.By
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Authorized Signatory CHIPPAC LIQUIDITY
MANAGEMENTHUNGARY LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYBy
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Authorized Signatory




---



##### 



STATS CHIPPAC KOREA LTD.By
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Director STATS CHIPPAC TAIWAN CO., LTD.By
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Director TRUSTEE:U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONBy
    /s/ Raymond S. HaverstockName:
    Raymond S. HaverstockTitle:
    Vice President COMPANY:STATS CHIPPAC LTD.By
    /s/ Tan Lay KoonName:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



Original Agreements Supplemental Agreement, Agreement Company Trustee
  STATS CHIPPAC (THAILAND) LIMITEDBy:Name:
    Tan Lay KoonTitle:
    Director A-1
Searched for **https://www.oversight.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.oversight.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SUNBEAM CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIODS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                         23,098
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 404,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   43,745
<INVENTORY>                                                   539,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              991,977
<PP&E>                                                        671,321
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (218,718)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              3,239,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         649,871
<BONDS>                                                     2,308,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                        1,074
<OTHER-SE>                                                   (69,161)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                3,239,940
<SALES>                                                       539,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              539,053
<CGS>                                                         405,764
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 405,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              (2,492)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             52,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (57,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    1,667
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (59,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (59,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  (0.55)


</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 3, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Georgia, sitting by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10133

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-22738-CV-FAM

JASON A. PELLON, DANNY BALLADARES, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

versus 

BUSINESS REPRESENTATION INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

JOSEPH C. LORENZO, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 3, 2008)

Before BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and FORRESTER, District Judge. 

*

PER CURIAM:
2

Appellants, a group of fifty-three airport employees commonly known as

“skycaps,” appeal from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of

their employer, Business Representation International, Inc. (“BRI”), and BRI’s

sole owner, Joseph C. Lorenzo (together, “the defendants”). The skycaps allege

that the defendants violated certain minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. On appeal, they contend that the

district court erred in rejecting their claims that: (1) BRI failed to give them

adequate notice of its intention to use their tips towards its minimum wage

obligations under the FLSA; (2) BRI required them to perform “non-tipped” tasks

beyond their ordinary job responsibilities without appropriate compensation; and

(3) a fee they were required to collect from customers constituted impermissible

tip-sharing within the meaning of the FLSA. 

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See, e.g.,

Natural Answers, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 529 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th

Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). On summary judgment, we “view the evidence and all

factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,

and resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-movant.”
3

Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1226 (11th Cir. 2004). 

After thorough review of the record and careful consideration of the parties’

briefs and oral argument, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s wellreasoned order issued on December 17, 2007. See Pellon v. Bus. Representation

Int’l, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2007).

AFFIRMED.