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

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      2,269,600
<SECURITIES>                                4,224,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                  26,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            6,520,300
<PP&E>                                      7,451,300
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,812,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             11,159,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         535,200
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 10,616,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               11,159,300
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,223,000
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 227,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               98,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               751,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           751,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  751,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     10.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   10.06


</TABLE>
*Monday, November 23, 1998*

MOTION DOCKET

93-7.

#### State v. Williams.

Butler App. Nos. CA91-04-060 and CA92-06-110. On October 3, 1996, this court granted a stay of execution in this cause pending disposition of state post-conviction proceedings. Appellee has filed a motion to set an execution date on the ground that state post-conviction proceedings have been *1415exhausted. Whereas, on November 18, 1998, this court denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration in case No. 98-1587, appellant’s post-conviction appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that an execution date be set.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the court that appellant’s sentence be carried into execution by the

Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the Deputy Warden on Monday, the 22nd day of February, 1999, in accordance with the statutes so provided.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certified copy of this entry and a warrant under the seal of this court be duly certified to the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and that the Warden shall make due return thereof to the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Independence Holding Company Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       235,750,000
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  15,013,000
<MORTGAGE>                                     256,000
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             323,172,000
<CASH>                                      21,671,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                         109,152,000
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      20,079,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             495,903,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            229,644,000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         21,905,000
<POLICY-OTHER>                              65,070,000
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        3,553,000
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,388,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 101,845,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               495,903,000
<PREMIUMS>                                  60,264,000
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         15,538,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           1,815,000
<OTHER-INCOME>                               5,294,000
<BENEFITS>                                  44,492,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  3,781,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,665,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,539,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,126,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,126,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 30, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ Nos. 3D20-1470; 3D21-0737; 3D21-0409 Lower Tribunal No. 19-29733

________________ 

### Stanislav Fiskin , Appellant,
vs. 

### Wilmington Trust, N.A., etc. ,

Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon and Charles K. Johnson, Judges. Cotzen Law, P.A., and Michael L. Cotzen, for appellant. Fox McCluskey Bush Robison PLLC, and Eric S. Matthew (Stuart), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 1996 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,372
<SECURITIES>                                    55,208
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,796
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,124
<PP&E>                                          68,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   288,676
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,232
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,311
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,835
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,544)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,452)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,996)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Computation not applicable
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2013225EN.01004502.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/45

---

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Novontech-Zala kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

(Case C-324/12) (1)

1

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Opposition lodged out of time - Article 20 - Review in exceptional cases - No ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances)

2013/C 225/78

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novontech-Zala kft

Applicant:

Defendant: LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 20(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) — Opposition to a European order for payment made after the time limit as a result of an error on the part of the lawyer of the party concerned — Possible existence of a case of force majeure or of extraordinary circumstances

force majeure

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The failure to observe the time-limit for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, by reason of the negligence of the defendant’s representative, does not justify a review of that order for payment, since such a failure to observe the time-limit does not constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(1)(b) or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

Chief Financial Officer Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q (the "Form 10-Q") for the periods ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof , I, Danice L. Chartrand, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | 1. | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  November 12, 2004

| | /s/ Danice L. Chartrand                     
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Danice L. Chartrand, Chief Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing except to the extent the registrant specifically and expressly incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
§ 1305.2 Disclosure requirement for existing rates. ( a ) A pipeline carrier must disclose to any person, on request, the specific rate(s) requested (or the basis for calculating the specific rate(s)), as well as all charges and service terms that may be applicable to transportation covered by those rate(s).
( b ) The information provided by a pipeline carrier under this section must be provided immediately. (It is expected that the response will be sent within hours, or at the latest by the next business day, in most situations.) Such information may be provided either in writing or in electronic form, as agreed to by the parties. If the parties cannot agree, such information is to be provided in electronic form where both parties have the requisite capabilities; otherwise, it is to be provided in writing.
( c ) A pipeline carrier may, at its option, require that all requests submitted under this section be in writing or electronic form, or the carrier may permit oral requests.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE KEYES COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

GARY LESNIK and HOPE LESNIK,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-3340

[July 29, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Raag Singhal, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE16-006640 

(21).

Bruce D. Friedlander of Friedlander & Kamelhair, PL, Pembroke Pines, 

for appellant.

Bruce S. Rogow and Tara A. Campion of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellees.

Matthew J. Conigliaro of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, for Amicus Curiae 

the Florida Association of Realtors, Inc. d/b/a Florida Realtors.

ON APPELLEES’ CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The appellees appropriately have acknowledged the trial court’s error 

in entering a final judgment against the appellant where the appellees did 

not prove the appellant’s alleged negligence proximately caused damages

to them. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment, with 

directions to enter a final judgment for the appellant.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

LEVINE, C.J., and GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, June 7, 1995 (75), Para 75.7 Committees and Subcommittees to Sit]
[Page 826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.75.7  committees and subcommittees to sit

  On motion of Mr. GOSS, by unanimous consent, the following committees 
and their subcommittees were granted permission to sit during the 5-
minute rule today: the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the 
Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on National Security, and the 
Committee on Science.
```
NOS. 12-24-00143-CR 

 12-24-00144-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS 

PAUL ANTHONY ASHFORD, JR., 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

APPELLEE

§

§ 

§ 

APPEAL FROM THE 87TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Paul Anthony Ashford, Jr. pleaded “guilty” to indecency with a child by sexual contact

and aggravated sexual assault of a child as a lesser included offense of sex abuse of a child, 

continuous victim under fourteen. In accordance with the agreed punishment recommendation, 

the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty years in prison for the indecency offense and thirty 

years in prison for aggravated sexual assault. Appellant appealed.

The clerk’s record has been filed and the trial court’s certifications state that this is a plea 

bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal. The certifications are signed by 

Appellant and his counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The clerk’s record does not otherwise 

indicate that the trial court gave Appellant permission to appeal.

When the defendant is the appellant, the record must include the trial court’s certification 

of the defendant’s right of appeal. Id. This Court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that 

shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. Based on 

0847
2 

our review of the record, the trial court’s certifications appear to accurately state that these are

plea bargain cases and Appellant has no right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review record to determine whether 

trial court’s certification is accurate). Because the trial court did not grant Appellant the right to 

appeal, we dismiss the appeals. 

Opinion delivered June 12, 2024. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

0848
H. R. 1878

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To extend for 4 years the period of applicability of enrollment mix requirement

to certain health maintenance organizations providing services under Dayton

Area Health Plan.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENDING PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY OF ENROLLMENT

MIX REQUIREMENT TO CERTAIN HEALTH MAINTENANCE

ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING SERVICES UNDER DAYTON

AREA HEALTH PLAN.

Section 2 of Public Law 102–276, as amended by section 13644

of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, is amended

by striking ‘‘December 31, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 1999’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Pressure BioSciences, Inc. (formerly Boston Biomedica, Inc.) on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-30320, 333-24770, 333-128594, and 333-155405) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-148227) of our report dated March 31, 2011, with respect to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Pressure BioSciences, Inc. (which report includes an explanatory paragraph related to uncertainty of the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern), which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pressure BioSciences, Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2010.








/s/ Marcum LLP





Marcum LLP


Boston, Massachusetts


March 31, 2011
§ 1560.109 Aircraft Operator Implementation Plan. ( a ) *Content of the Aircraft Operator Implementation Plan (AOIP).* Each covered aircraft operator must adopt and carry out an AOIP that sets forth the following: ( 1 ) The covered aircraft operator's test plan with TSA.
( 2 ) When the covered operator will begin to collect and transmit to TSA each data element of the SFPD for each covered flight.
( 3 ) The specific means by which the covered aircraft operator will request and transmit information under § 1560.101, the timing and frequency of transmission, and any other related matters, in accordance with the Consolidated User Guide.
( b ) *Adoption of Aircraft Operator Implementation Plan (AOIP).* Each covered aircraft operator must adopt an AOIP pursuant to the procedures set forth in this paragraph (b). ( 1 ) TSA notifies each covered aircraft operator in writing of a proposed AOIP, fixing a period of not less than 30 days within which the covered aircraft operator may submit written information, views, and arguments on the proposed AOIP.
( 2 ) After considering all relevant material, TSA's designated official notifies each covered aircraft operator of its AOIP. The AOIP becomes effective not less than 30 days after the covered aircraft operator receives the notice of its AOIP, unless the covered aircraft operator petitions the Assistant Secretary or designated official to reconsider no later than 15 days before the effective date of the AOIP. The covered aircraft operator must send the petition for reconsideration to the designated official. A timely petition for reconsideration stays the effective date of the AOIP.
( 3 ) Upon receipt of a petition for reconsideration, the designated official either amends the AOIP or transmits the petition, together with any pertinent information, to the Assistant Secretary or designee for reconsideration. The Assistant Secretary or designee disposes of the petition within 30 days of receipt by either directing the designated official to withdraw or amend the AOIP, or by affirming the AOIP.
( 4 ) TSA may, at its discretion, grant extensions to any schedule deadlines, on its own initiative or upon the request of a covered aircraft operator.
( c ) *Incorporation into Security Program.* Once an AOIP is approved, the AOIP becomes part of the covered aircraft operator's security program as described in 49 CFR part 1544, subpart B, or 49 CFR part 1546, subpart B, as appropriate, and any amendments will be made in accordance with the procedures in those subparts.
( d ) *Handling of Aircraft Operator Implementation Plan (AOIP).* An AOIP contains sensitive security information (SSI) and must be handled and protected in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520.
#### § 1242.43 Administration (account XX-27-01).

Separate common expenses according to freight/passenger separation of the following accounts:

Passenger and Other Revenue Equipment (XX-27-45)

Work and Other Non-Revenue Equipment (XX-27-47)
§ 96.35-90 Vessels contracted for before November 23, 1992. Vessels contracted for before November 23, 1992, must meet the following requirements: ( a ) Each vessel must satisfy §§ 96.35-5 through 96.35-20 concerning the number of items and method of stowage of equipment.
( b ) Items of equipment previously approved, but not meeting the applicable specifications set forth in § 96.35-5, may continue in service as long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection; but each item in an installation or a replacement must meet all applicable specifications.
( c ) After November 23, 1994, each respirator must either satisfy § 96.35-5(b) or be a self-contained compressed-air breathing apparatus previously approved by MSHA and NIOSH under part 160, subpart 160.011, of this chapter.
[CGD 86-036, 57 FR 48326, Oct. 23, 1992]