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>                          FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-04-1997
<CASH>                                             480
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      871
<ALLOWANCES>                                        15
<INVENTORY>                                     15,782
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,384
<PP&E>                                          13,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,386
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,943
<SALES>                                         27,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,642
<CGS>                                           13,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    39
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,567)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,567)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,567)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Alonzo F. Hubbard *v.*Stella Taylor et al.

November Term, 1909.

Present: Rowell, C. J., Munson, Watson, Haselton, and Powers, JJ.

Opinion filed December 7, 1909.

*Tax Sales*— Validity—Collector *Acting for Bidder.*

Where a tax collector, selling land at public auction for unpaid taxes, struck it off to a person who was not present at the sale, but who prior thereto had told the collector that he would pay the taxes and costs for the land, there being no other bidder, the sale was void as against public policy.

Ejectment. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court, at the December Term, 1906, Windsor County, *Taylor,*J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The opinion states the case.

*William W. Stickney, J. G. Sargent, Homer L. Skeels*and *F. C. Southgate*for the plaintiff.

*Davis & Da/uis*for the defendants.

Rowell, C. J.

This is ejectment for land in Plymouth. The plaintiff claims title under a tax deed executed to him in default of redemption. The sale was advertised for Dee. 26, 1892, but was adjourned to Dec. 29, 1892. Between those dates the plaintiff said to the collector, “I will pay the taxes and costs for the land.” The collector received that as a bid, and sold the land .at public auction to satisfy the tax and costs, and struck it off to the plaintiff, who was the highest and only bidder therefor, but who was not present at the sale. If the collector had struck the land off to himself for the plaintiffJ instead of to the plaintiff, the case would have been like *Crahan*v. *Chittenden,*82 Vt. 410. There the collector bid off the land in his own name for, and at the request of, another who was not present at the sale. It was held that the sale was void as against public policy, for *121that the collector’s official duty and that of his private agency were in conflict, and made the faithful performance of one inconsistent with the faithful performance of the other. But the fact that here the collector struck off the land to the plaintiff and not to himself, makes no difference, for he was, nevertheless, acting for and in behalf of the plaintiff; and as that relation was inconsistent with his official duty, the law forbade him to enter into it, for no man can properly serve two masters concerning a matter in which their interests are in conflict. We hold, therefore, that for this reason the sale was void. This being decisive of the case, there is no occasion for considering any of the other questions presented.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending October 17, 2009

----

EnforcementBOI Financial Corporation, Normal, Illinois, and Bank of Illinois  -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago					-Announced, October 14, 2009 					CBR Holdings, Inc., Chicago, Illinois  -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.					-Announced, October 13, 2009 					

PersonnelDivision of Monetary Affairs  -- appointment of Matthew Luecke as assistant director, Andrew Levin and William Nelson as senior associate directors, Seth Carpenter and Roberto Perli as associate directors, and Gretchen Weinbach and Egon Zakrajsek as deputy associate directors.					-Announced, October 13, 2009 					

Testimony And StatementsState of the Banking Industry  -- statement by Governor Tarullo before a subcomittee of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on the condition of the U.S. banking industry.					-Published, October 14, 2009 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: October 22, 2009
98-726.

#### State v. Jackson.

Franklin C.P. No. 97CR041902. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of execution,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that appellant’s motion for stay of execution be, and hereby is, granted, pending disposition of this appeal.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2488]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provision set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; 
Clinical Trials Review Committee.
    Date: June 25, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Intercontinental Harbor Court, 550 Light Street, 
Baltimore, MD 21202.
    Contact Person: Patricia A Haggerty, PhD, Section Chief, 
Clinical Studies and Training Scientific Review Group, Review 
Branch, Division of Extramural Research Activities, National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7194, MSC 
7924, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-0288, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2488 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
§ 1180.0 Scope and purpose. ( a ) *General.* The regulations in this subpart set out the information to be filed and the procedures to be followed in control, merger, acquisition, lease, trackage rights, and any other consolidation transaction involving more than one railroad that is initiated under 49 U.S.C. 11323. Section 1180.2 separates these transactions into four types: *Major, significant, minor,* and *exempt.* The informational requirements for these types of transactions differ. Before an application is filed, the designation of type of transaction may be clarified or certain of the information required may be waived upon petition to the Board. This procedure is explained in § 1180.4. The required contents of an application are set out in §§ 1180.6 (general information supporting the transaction), 1180.7 (competitive and market information), 1180.8 (operational information), 1180.9 (financial data), 1180.10 (service assurance plans), and 1180.11 (transnational and other informational requirements). A *major* application must contain the information required in §§ 1180.6(a), 1180.6(b), 1180.7(a), 1180.7(b), 1180.8(a), 1180.8(b), 1180.9, 1180.10, and 1180.11. A *significant* application must contain the information required in §§ 1180.6(a), 1180.6(c), 1180.7(a), 1180.7(c), and 1180.8(b). A *minor* application must contain the information required in §§ 1180.6(a) and 1180.8(c). Procedures (including time limits, filing requirements, participation requirements, and other matters) are contained in § 1180.4. All applications must comply with the Board's Rules of General Applicability, 49 CFR parts 1100 through 1129, unless otherwise specified. These regulations may be cited as the Railroad Consolidation Procedures.
( b ) *Waiver.* We will waive application of the regulations contained in this subpart for a consolidation involving The Kansas City Southern Railway Company and another Class I railroad and instead will apply the regulations in this subpart A in effect before July 11, 2001 and contained in the 49 CFR, Parts 1000 to 1199, edition revised as of October 1, 2000, unless we are shown why such a waiver should not be allowed. Interested parties must file any objections to this waiver within 10 days after the applicants' prefiling notification (see 49 CFR § 1180.4(b)(1)).
[66 FR 32583, June 15, 2001]
§ 541.4 Properly issued invoices. ( a ) A properly issued invoice is a demurrage or detention invoice issued by a billing party to: ( 1 ) The person for whose account the billing party provided ocean transportation or storage of cargo and who contracted with the billing party for the ocean transportation or storage of cargo; or
( 2 ) The consignee.
( b ) If a billing party issues a demurrage or detention invoice to the person identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, it cannot also issue a demurrage or detention invoice to the person identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( c ) A billing party cannot issue an invoice to any other person.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00102-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.G., Jr., et al.

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01856

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED August 21, 2019.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
#### Isaac Horton and another, *Appellants, v.*Hatlow G. Borthwick, *Respondent*.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SUNDANCE, INC. and 

MERLOT TARPAULIN AND

SIDEKIT MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 02-73543

DEMONTE FABRICATING LTD. and HON. AVERN COHN

QUICK DRAW TARPAULIN SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECALL JURY

AND

DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS

I.

This is a patent case tried to a jury. The plaintiffs, Sundance, Inc., Merlot

Tarpaulin and Sidekit Manufacturing Co., Inc. (collectively, Sundance) sued defendants

DeMonte Fabricating LTD and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. (collectively,

DeMonte) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,026,109 (the ‘109 patent). In April 2006,

a jury that found the ‘109 patent invalid and infringed. Sundance filed a motion for

judgment as a matter of law to set aside the jury’s finding of invalidity. The Court

granted the motion. See Memorandum and Order Granting Plaintiffs” motion for

Judgment as a Matter of Law or for a New Trial, filed September 20, 2006. DeMOnte

filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law to set aside the jury’s finding of

infringement. The Court denied the motion. See Memorandum and Order Denying
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding Infringement, filed April

25, 2007. A trial on damages before a new jury is set for Monday, May 14, 2007. 

II.

Before the Court is DeMonte’s Motion to Recall the Jury in which it asks the

Court to recall the jury from the liability phase for the damages phase or in the

alternative allow DeMonte to immediately appeal the Court’s validity ruling. Sundance

has responded. The motion is DENIED. There are no grounds for recalling the jury in

the liability phase or allowing DeMonte to appeal the validity ruling at this time. 

Also before the Court is DeMonte’s Renewed Motion for Reconsideration of the

Court’s Memorandum and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of

Law or For a New Trial, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex,

Inc., 550 U.S. __ (2007) impacts the Court’s validity finding. Sundance shall file

response to the motion within ten (10) days. 

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 8, 2007

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties

of record on this date, May 8, 2007, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
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 August 11, 2012

|Filer                        | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                          
|---------------------------- | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|FIRST PACTRUST BANCORP, INC. | * 3A5       | First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc., Irvine, California, to merge with Gateway Bancorp, Santa Ana, California, with First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc., surviving and thereby indirectly acquire Gateway Business Bank, Cerritos, California. | Newspaper:07/27/2012Federal Register:07/26/2012
|Newspaper:                   | 07/27/2012 
|Federal Register:            | 07/26/2012 

## 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
Exhibit  32.2




Certification
of Chief Financial Officer




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTIONS
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the quarterly report
of DGSE Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:




3)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and


4)
                The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Dated:
      August 14, 2009By  
      /s/
      John Benson
                    John
      Benson, Chief Financial Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DGSE Companies, Inc. and will be retained by DGSE Companies, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the
Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### August Adler, *an Infant, etc., Respondent, v.*Charles F. A. Hinrichs, *Appellant.*

— Judgment and order denying new trial reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.,

and Pratt, J.; Dykman, . J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 128 (Thursday, July 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 36737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3290]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Public Hearing

July 5, 2007
    OPIC's Sunshine Act notice of its Public Hearing in Conjunction 
with each Board meeting was published in the Federal Register (Volume 
72, Number 118, Page 34051) on June 20, 2007. No requests were received 
to provide testimony or submit written statements for the record; 
therefore, OPIC's public hearing scheduled for 2 p.m., June 5 2007 in 
conjunction with OPIC's July 12, 2007 Board of Directors meeting has 
been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Information on the hearing cancellation 
may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, via facsimile 
at (202) 218-0136, or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ccafa8a3bba28ca3bca5afe2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4122252e362f012e3128226f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 2, 2007.
Connie M. Downs,
OPIC Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-3290 Filed 7-2-07; 12:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1376. CALEB COLE THOMPSON v. AMBER LOUISE THOMPSON.

Caleb Cole Thompson has filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s final

judgment and decree granting Amber Louise Thompson’s petition for divorce,

awarding Amber sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor children, and

declining to awardCaleb visitation with the children. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), direct appeals may be had from “[a]ll

judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or

modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such

child custody judgment or orders.” “Appeals from judgments or orders in divorce,

alimony, and other domestic relations cases,” however, must be initiated by filing an

application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b). Thus, direct appeals

will not lie from “orders relating to child custody issues that are entered in divorce

cases.” Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 45 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (punctuation

omitted); accord Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) (757 SE2d 838) (2014)

(“Where, as here, child custody issues are ancillary to a divorce action, the

determination of child custody does not transformthe case into a ‘child custody case,’

as that phrase is used in OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), for purposes of determining the

appropriate method for appealing a child custody order.”). 

“Because this is not a child custody case, but is a divorce case in which child

custody is an issue, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2) requires an application for discretionary

appeal, and a direct appeal is not authorized by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11).” Todd v.

Todd, 287 Ga. 250, 252 (1) (703 SE2d 597) (2010); accord Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga.

App. 233, 234 (818 SE2d 690) (2018). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals

May 06, 2022
procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257,

257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Caleb Thompson’s failure to follow the required appellate

procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED. See Ford, 347 Ga. App. at 234.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/06/2022