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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                       545
<INVENTORY>                                     20,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,230
<PP&E>                                          31,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,926
<BONDS>                                         26,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,830
<SALES>                                        169,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,948
<CGS>                                          127,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,894
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,189
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                641
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       641
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06


</TABLE>
Exhibit
      21





**List
      of Registrant’s Active Subsidiaries**







**Opus
      Diagnostics Inc.**


Delaware
      Corporation


100%
      owned by Caprius, Inc.





**M.C.M.
      Environmental Technologies, Inc.**


Delaware
      Corporation


96.66%
      owned





**M.C.M.
      Environmental Technologies, Ltd.**


Israeli
      Corporation


100%
      owned by M.C.M. Environmental Technologies, Inc.




**M.C.M.
      Environmental Technologies (UK) Ltd.**


United
      Kingdom


100%
      owned by M.C.M. Environmental Technologies, Inc.
#### JOHNSON v. M’COY.

December 19, 1835.

*Motion for a rule on sheriff to return the capias ad respondendum.*

Where the sheriff has not returned the *capias ad respondendum,*hut the pro-thonotary takes special bail, and the plaintiff enters a rule of reference, the court will not rule the sheriff to return the writ.

Even without the entry of a rule of reference, the *laches*of the plaintiff, in not. applying for such rule on the sheriff, is a decisive objection to its being granted.

The lapse of four terms after the return day constitutes such *laches.*

ON the 8th of November 1834, the plaintiff sued out a *capias ad respondendum,*returnable on the first Monday of December following, on which day, special bail was entered with the prolhonotary. March 13th, 1835, the plaintiff filed a *statement*of his cause of action, and on the same day entered a *rule of reference*under the compulsory arbitration act. It did not appear that arbitrators had been chosen.

On the 5th of December 1835, *Jack,*for the plaintiff, applied for a rule on the sheriff to return the writ. He alleged that the sheriff, not having returned the writ, the prolhonotary had acted without authority in taking special bail, and he contended the bail was on that account a nullity. He cited, *Impey on Sheriff and Coroner*100 ; 7 *D.*& *E.*109, 239 ; Collins *v.*Snuggs, 17 *Eng. C. L. Rep.*17.

*P. A. Browne,*on behalf of the sheriff,

asserted his belief, that from information derived from the sheriff’s officers, the writ had been returned, although it had not been found in the prothonotary’s office. But whether or not this were so, he said, was now immaterial, special bail having been taken by the proper officer more than a year before the present application, and no exception having been made to its regularity, but on the contrary, the plaintiff having filed his *statement*and entered a rule of reference subsequently.

Per Curiam.

This application must be denied. If the writ had not been returned, the prolhonotary was not authorized, by the rule of court, to take the bail. His having taken it, then, furnishes some *90presumption that the return had been made. But it is unnecessary to rely upon this. The entry of a rule of reference is, in itself, a *waiver*of bail. Moulson *v.*Rees, 6 *Binn.*32 ; Phillips *v.*Oliver, 5 *Serg*& *Rawle*419; Nones *v.*Gilbaud, 11 *Serg.*& *Rawle*9; Landis *v.*Bigler, cited in Mechanics Bank *v.*Fisher, 1 *Rawle*347. A further decisive objection is the *laches*of the plaintiff iu not having made his application sooner. Four terms have elapsed since the return day of the writ.

Rule refused.
EXHIBIT 99.2


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Caprius, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jonathan Joels,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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/Jonathan Joels
-------------------------------------
Jonathan Joels
Treasurer and CFO

January 13, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                       [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LETTERHEAD]


                        CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY


           We consent to the use on the form 10-K of Sterling Drilling Fund
1983-2 of our reserve report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments 
thereto incorporated by reference of Form 10-K and to any reference made to 
us on Form 10-K as a result of such incorporation.


                                        Very Truly Yours,

                                        /s/ Ryder Scott Company
                                            Petroleum Engineers

                                        RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                        PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


Denver, Colorado
March 11, 1996
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,570
<PP&E>                                          27,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,038,972
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,133,782
<COMMON>                                     3,517,287
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,646,266)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,775
<SALES>                                        468,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               468,882
<CGS>                                        1,679,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,515,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               632,925
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,713,914)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,786,550)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,786,550)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.93)
        

</TABLE>
No. 42155.

#### Protests 982893-G, etc., of Otto Roth & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Metabolix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Richard P. Eno, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Joseph D. Hill, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge that:

 

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

 

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

 

This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

 
| Dated:   April 28, 2011 | /s/     RICHARD P. ENO                                          |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | *President and Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)*  |
|                         |                                                                      |
| Dated:   April 28, 2011 | /s/     JOSEPH D. HILL                                          |
|                         | *Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2126 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2126

 To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to extend and 
             improve the milk income loss contract program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2012

Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Sanders) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to extend and 
             improve the milk income loss contract program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``MILC Continuation Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM.

    Section 1506 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 
U.S.C. 8773) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(3)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B)--
                            (i) by striking ``August 31, 2012'' and 
                        inserting ``September 30, 2013''; and
                            (ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
                        period; and
                    (C) by striking subparagraph (C);
            (2) in subsection (d)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``August 31, 
                2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 2013'';
                    (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
                    (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
                (2);
            (3) in subsection (e)(2)(A)--
                    (A) in clause (i), by adding ``and'' at the end;
                    (B) in clause (ii)--
                            (i) by striking ``August 31, 2012'' and 
                        inserting ``September 30, 2013''; and
                            (ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
                        period; and
                    (C) by striking clause (iii); and
            (4) in subsections (g) and (h)(1), by striking ``2012'' 
        each place it appears and inserting ``2013''.
                                 <all>
```
#### YOUNG v. CORDER.

November 11, 1837.

*Rule to show cause of action, and why defendant should not he discharged on common bail.*

An affidavit to hold to bail that defendant is indebted to the plaintiff (stating in what respect) “ to the best of deponent’s knowledge and belief,” is defective, and defendant will be discharged on common bail.

THIS was a *capias ad*respondendum, and this application was founded on an alleged defectiveness of the following affidavit, which,was duly filed: “Samuel P. Williams, agent for the plaintiff above named, being duly sworn, doth say, that the defendants above mentioned are justly and truly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $614 29 cents and interest, being the amount of a promissory note given by defendants to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, said note bearing date the 17th of August, 1836, payable at six months after date, *and which still remains due and unpaid to the best of deponent's knowledge and belief.*

*Williams,*for plaintiff.

*F. W. Hubbell,*for defendant

Per Curiam.—

The affidavit in Bland *v.*Drake, 18 *E. C. L.*Ü. 58, bears a very close resemblance to the present affidavit. The alleged defect there and here may be regarded as precisely similar. We think that decision was correct, and accordingly direct this rule to be discharged.

Rule discharged.a

a

*Vide*Comly *v.*Goldsmith; McCanles v. Frederickson; Benedict v. Whartenby and Kelly *v.*Kintzing, in this volume, and the index.
No. 96-7947.

#### Schweihs *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2013055EN.01001902.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/19

---

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — bachmeier v OHIM (oto-soft)

(Case T-550/12)

2013/C 55/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: bachmeier GmbH & Co. KG (Ramsau b. Berchtesgaden, Germany) (represented by D. Donath, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October 2012 in Case R 1784/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October 2012 in Case R 1784/2011-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘oto-soft’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 8, 10, 41 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 9 836 081

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM IMATRON
INC.'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000720477
<NAME>                                        Imatron Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          1,445
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,272)
<INVENTORY>                                    14,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,590
<PP&E>                                          9,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,809) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 31,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,777
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      107,475
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   31,651
<SALES>                                        22,547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,660
<CGS>                                          23,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 20
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (4,507)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                              
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,781)                              
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2055 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2055

    To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to the 
                   protection of certain information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2012

  Mr. Shelby (for himself, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Wicker) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to the 
                   protection of certain information.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GUARANTEE OF PRIVILEGE.

    Section 18(x) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1828(x)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the 
following:
            ``(1) In general.--The submission by any person of any 
        information to any Federal banking agency, State bank 
        supervisor, foreign banking authority, or the Bureau of 
        Consumer Financial Protection for any purpose in the course of 
        any supervisory or regulatory process of the agency, 
        supervisor, authority, or Bureau shall not be construed as 
        waiving, destroying, or otherwise affecting any privilege such 
        person may claim with respect to such information under Federal 
        or State law as to any person or entity other than such agency, 
        supervisor, authority, or Bureau.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2253 

To require individuals who file under the Ethics in Government Act of 

1978 to disclose any financial accounts that are or have been deposited 

in a country that is a tax haven. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require individuals who file under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to disclose any financial accounts 

that are or have been deposited in a country that is 

a tax haven. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Financial Disclosure 

5 to Reduce Tax Haven Abuse Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF ACCOUNTS HELD IN TAX HAVENS. 

7 Section 102(b)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act 

8 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2253 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, with a 

2 specific accounting of any financial interest held by 

3 the covered individual or their spouse in a country 

4 that is considered as a tax haven as listed by the 

5 Secretary of the Treasury and made available to the 

6 filer’’ after ‘‘calendar year’’; and 

7 (2) inserting at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘In compiling the list of tax havens under subpara9 graph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury should con10 sider for inclusion those jurisdictions which have 

11 been previously and publicly identified by the Inter12 nal Revenue Service as secrecy jurisdictions in Fed13 eral court proceedings.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS