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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                55
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                          7
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     447
<PP&E>                               173
<DEPRECIATION>                        42
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     2,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,349
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            38
<COMMON>                              834
<OTHER-SE>                          1,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        2,459
<SALES>                               275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      275
<CGS>                                119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      3,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     674
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (3,407)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       (3,407)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.48)



</TABLE>
#### § 67.533 Application for Certificate of Compliance.

An application fee is charged for a Certificate of Compliance to be issued in accordance with regulations set forth in 46 CFR part 68.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed May 21, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01359
- CV JEFFREY LONGINO , Appellant

V. HPA TEXAS SUB 2018
- 1 LLC C/O PATHLIGHT PROPERTY M GT , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 005
- 03013
- 2018 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck This is an appeal f

rom the c ounty court’s order in a forcible detainer action awarding appellee possession of appellant’s residence. A review of the record revealed that, following the filing of the appeal, a writ of possession was served and the propert y was turned over to appellee

. Because an appeal in a forcible detainer action generally becomes moot when the appellant no longer has possession of the property , w e questioned our jurisdiction over th e appeal

. See Olley v. HVM, LLC , 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist .] 2014, pet. denied). We directed appellant to file , within ten days, a letter brief addressing our concern and cautioned appellant that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See– 2

–

T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3 (a). Mo re than ten days have passed, but appellant has not responded. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. ; Olley , 449 S.W.3d at 575.

181359F.P05 /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
JEFFREY LONGINO, Appellant
No. 05

- 18

- 01359

- CV V.
HPA TEXAS SUB 2018

- 1 LLC C/O PATHLIGHT PROPERTY MGT, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 005

- 03013

- 2018. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, Justices Osborne and Reichek participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER appellee HPA Texas Sub 2018

- 1 LLC c/o Pathlight Property Mgt recover its costs, if any, of this appe al from appellant Jeffrey Longino.
Judgment entered this 21st day of May 2019.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

CERTIFICATION

I, Teresa A. Herbert, certify that: 

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independence Holding Company; 

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this quarterly 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;

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-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have:
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 quarterly report is being prepared;

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

disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal controls 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.

 

 

 

/s/*Teresa A. Herbert*	

Teresa A. Herbert

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
Date:
August 14, 2003
###### Editorial Note on Part 8

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49224, Sept. 25, 2009.

#### § 8.300 Purpose.

This subpart establishes options for vessel owners and operators to obtain required international convention certification through means other than those prescribed elsewhere in this chapter.
§ 58.30-5 Design requirements. ( a ) The requirements of part 56 of this subchapter are also applicable to piping and fittings in fluid power and control systems listed in § 58.30-1, except as modified herein. The designer should consider the additional pressure due to hydraulic shock.
( b ) The system must be so designed that proper functioning of any unit must not be affected by the back pressure in the system. The design must be such that malfunctioning of any unit in the system will not render any other connected or emergency system inoperative because of back pressure.
( c ) Pneumatic systems with a maximum allowable working pressure in excess of 150 psi must be designed with a surge tank or other acceptable means of pulsation dampening.
( d ) Each pneumatic system must minimize the entry of oil into the system and must drain the system of liquids.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19630
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      15000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 66696
<PP&E>                                         1699745
<DEPRECIATION>                                  387352
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1379089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           984297
<BONDS>                                        2141311
<COMMON>                                          9732
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     7232450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1379089
<SALES>                                          21906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 21906
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1371756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1361656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (3271877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                               (1922027)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3271877)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.336)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.336)


</TABLE>
#### The National Park Bank of New York, Respondent, *v.*Frank Rando, Appellant.

*National Park Bank of N. Y.*v. Rando, 135 App. Div. 914, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted September 26, 1910;

decided October 3, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the first judicial department, entered December 8,1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

The motion was made upon the ground that the appellant failed to perfect his appeal by filing the required undertaking.

*Louis F. Doyle*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
§ 42.20-70 Minimum bow height. ( a ) The bow height defined as the vertical distance at the forward perpendicular between the waterline corresponding to the assigned summer freeboard and the designed trim and the top of the exposed deck at side shall be not less than: ( 1 ) For vessels below 820 feet in length, 0.672*L*[1−(*L*/1640)][1.36/(*C* b + 0.68)] inches; where: *L* is the length of the vessel in feet. *C* b is the block coefficient which is to be taken as not less than 0.68.
( 2 ) For vessels of 820 feet and above in length, 275.6[1.36/(*C* b + 0.68)] inches; where: *C* b is the block coefficient which is to be taken as not less than 0.68.
( b ) Where the bow height required in paragraph (a) of this section is obtained by sheer, the sheer shall extend for at least 15 percent of the length of the vessel measured from the forward perpendicular. Where it is obtained by fitting a superstructure, such superstructure shall extend from the stem to a point at least 0.07*L* abaft the forward perpendicular, and it shall comply with the following requirements: ( 1 ) For vessels not over 328 feet in length it shall be enclosed as defined in § 42.13-15(j); and,
( 2 ) For vessels over 328 feet in length it need not comply with § 42.13-15(j) but shall be fitted with closing appliances to the satisfaction of the assigning authority.
( c ) Vessels which, to suit exceptional operational requirements, cannot meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may be given special consideration by the assigning authority.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10066, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9016, June 5, 1969]
§ 502.6 Verification of documents. ( a ) If a party is represented by an attorney or other person qualified to practice before the Commission under the rules in this part, each pleading, document or other paper of such party filed with the Commission shall be signed by at least one person of record admitted to practice before the Commission in his or her individual name, whose address shall be stated. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, such pleading, document or paper need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The signature of a person admitted or qualified to practice before the Commission constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, document or paper; that the signer is authorized to file it; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the filing is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. For a willful violation of this section, a person admitted or qualified to practice before the Commission may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action.
( b ) If a party is not represented by a person admitted or qualified to practice before the Commission, each pleading, document or other paper of such party filed with the Commission shall be signed and verified under oath by the party or by a duly authorized officer or agent of the party, whose address and title shall be stated.
( c ) Wherever, under any rules of this part, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition under§ 502.143 or § 502.144), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by such person, as true under penalty of perjury, in substantially the following form: ( 1 ) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.”
( 2 ) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” [Rule 6.]
[76 FR 10261, Feb. 24, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 93835, Dec. 22, 2016]
Exhibit 31.4

I, Michael R. Conn, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K/A of GSI
Commerce, 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.

Date: April 26, 2006



By:

/s/ Michael R. ConnMichael R. ConnChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending April 19, 2008

|Filer                          | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------------ | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|CARPENTER FUND MANAGER GP, LLC | * 3A1         | Carpenter Fund Manager GP, LLC, Carpenter Fund Management, LLC, and Carpenter Community Bancfund-A, L.P., all of Irvine, California, to become bank holding companies by acquiring 24.3 percent of Mission Community Bancorp, and thereby its subsidiary, Mission Community Bank, both of San Luis Obispo, California. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:05/02/2008
|Newspaper:                     | Not available
|Federal Register:              | 05/02/2008   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 44.05-20 Conditions of assignment. ( a ) *Steam colliers.* The conditions of assignment for steam colliers shall be in accordance with the requirements of part 42 of this subchapter, except that in the case of steam colliers constructed with bulwarks, the freeing port may be of a practically continuous slot type, located as low as possible, the clear area of the slot to be not less than 20 percent of the superficial area of the unpierced bulwarks. If, due to sheer, or other conditions, the assigning authority considers that extra local provision should be made for freeing decks of water, the slots are to be located so as to have maximum efficacy.
( b ) *Towed barges.* The conditions of assignment for towed cargo barges where the cargo is carried under deck shall be in accordance with §§ 45.10-5 to 45.10-100 of this subchapter. In the case of tank barges and cargo barges carrying cargo only on deck, compliance will also be required with the supplementary conditions of §§ 45.20-1 to 45.20-70 of this subchapter. In the case of cargo barges of the open type, assignment will be limited to barges in unmanned operation and the construction of the vessel must be such as to satisfy the assigning authority that no unusual hazards will be experienced.
( c ) *Self-propelled barges.* The conditions of assignment for self-propelled cargo barges carrying cargo under decks shall be in accordance with the provisions of §§ 45.10-5 to 45.10-100 of this subchapter. In the case of self-propelled tank barges and self-propelled cargo barges carrying cargo only on deck, compliance will also be required with the supplementary conditions of §§ 45.20-1 to 45.20-70 of this subchapter.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16755, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10076, July 12, 1968]
#### The State ex rel. Grove, Appellant, *v.*Nadel, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 252.]

(No. 98-1478

Submitted November 10, 1998

Decided December 30, 1998.)

*253
      *Mark Earl Grove, pro se.*

*Joseph T. Deters,*Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Ronald W. Springman, Jr.,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Grove asserts that the court of appeals erred in granting Judge Nadel’s second motion to dismiss because it was contrary to this court’s mandate and his trial court transmitted the wrong transcript in his appeal of right. For the following reasons, however, Grove’s claims lack merit.

First, the court correctly dismissed Grove’s procedendo action on remand from this court because Judge Nadel had already performed the requested act, *ie.,*he journalized his January 1997 decision denying Grove’s motion for a copy of his transcript. Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. *Martin v. Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas*(1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 71, 72, 552 N.E.2d 906, 908. The court of appeals appropriately took judicial notice that Grove’s procedendo action was moot based on the journalized entry submitted by Judge Nadel in his second motion to dismiss. See *State ex rel. Konoff v. Shafer*(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 294, 295, 685 N.E.2d 1248, 1249.

Second, Grove’s claim that Judge Nadel erred in denying his motion for a copy of his trial transcript should be raised in an appeal from that journalized entry rather than in procedendo. Procedendo will not issue when the relator has an adequate legal remedy. *State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott*(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 65, 671 N.E.2d 24, 26; *State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner*(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 164, 656 N.E.2d 1288, 1294.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.