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

                                    Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share
<CAPTION>
<S> <C>

                                                                             Years Ended December 31,
                                                      -------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------
                                                              1996                    1995                     1994
                                                      -------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------
Primary:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                          10,917,920                11,023,921             11,144,938
  Net effect of dilutive stock options used on
  the treasury stock method using average
  market price                                                          -                         *                      *
                                                      -------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------
                                                               10,917,920                11,023,921             11,144,938
                                                      ==================== ========================= ======================
Net income (loss)                                              $4,321,645              $(3,532,442)           $(4,414,468)
                                                      ==================== ========================= ======================
Per share                                                           $0.40                   $(0.32)                $(0.40)
                                                      ==================== ========================= ======================
Fully diluted:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                          10,917,920                11,023,921             11,144,938
  Net effect of dilutive stock options based on
  the treasury stock method using ending
  market price, if higher than average market
  price                                                                 -                         *                      *
                                                      ==================== ========================= ======================
                                                               10,917,920                11,023,921             11,144,938
                                                      ==================== ========================= ======================

Net income (loss)                                              $4,321,645              $(3,532,442)           $(4,414,468)
                                                      ==================== ========================= ======================

Per Share                                                           $0.40                   $(0.32)                $(0.40)
                                                      ==================== ========================= ======================
* Antidilutive
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1
                         ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.
                         Consent of Rotenberg & Co., LLP



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp.
233 Ballston Avenue
Saratoga Springs, New York  12866


         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement  (Form S-8)  pertaining  to the 2000 Stock Option Plan of Espey Mfg. &
Electronics  Corp.  of our report dated  September 5, 2007,  with respect to the
financial statements and schedules of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. included in
its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended June 30, 2007, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


/s/ ROTENBERG AND COMPANY, LLP


Rochester, New York
September 5, 2007



33
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 American Physicians Service Group, Inc. (the ”Company”) on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No.1) for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

 

|   | 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 results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: May 2, 2007

 

/s/ Kenneth S. Shifrin

 

Kenneth S. Shifrin

Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT
      99.1**





**PRESS
      RELEASE**








**FOR
      IMMEDIATE RELEASE**


Contact:
            Brent
                L. Peters, Chairman of the Board,President
                and Chief Executive OfficerTelephone
                Number:
            610-965-5959E-mail:
            blpeters@eastpennbank.com








**EAST
      PENN FINANCIAL CORPORATION ANNOUNCES SEVEN**


**CONSECUTIVE
      YEARS OF INCREASED DIVIDEND PAYMENTS**








**(July
      24, 2007 – EMMAUS, PA –** East Penn Financial Corporation **(Nasdaq
      Capital Market: EPEN)** announced that on July 19 2007, its Board of
      Directors declared a regular cash dividend of $0.12 per share on its common
      stock for the second half of 2007.  The dividend is payable on August
      31, 2007 to all shareholders of record as of August 10, 2007.





Total
      cash dividends for 2007 are $0.24 per share and represent a 9.0% increase over
      2006 semi-annual cash dividends of $0.22 per share. This is the seventh
      consecutive year that the Company has paid and increased its cash dividends,
      on
      an annualized basis, since it initiated its first cash dividend payment of
      $0.05
      per share in 2001.





East
      Penn
      Financial Corporation, with assets of $443.6 million, is the bank holding
      company for its principal subsidiary, East Penn Bank, a locally owned community
      bank that serves the Lehigh Valley with 9 branch locations.  East Penn
      Financial Corporation’s stock is traded on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the
      symbol “EPEN”.  Additional information about East Penn Financial
      Corporation is available at **www.eastpennbank.com**.














This
      press release may contain forward-looking statements as defined by the Private
      Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  Actual results and trends
      could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various
      factors.  Such factors include the possibility that increased demand
      or prices for the Company’s financial services and products may not occur,
      changing economic and competitive conditions, technological developments, and
      other risks and uncertainties, including those detailed in East Penn Financial
      Corporation’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

WESTMORELAND REGIONAL HOSPITAL,

Respondent

v.

SUBWAY REAL ESTATE CORP.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 139 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### STATE ex rel. Richard KELLY v. John S. RAWLS et al.

No. 38195.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1969.

Prohibition denied without opinion.
#### Cruz R. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. PALMETTO GAS COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, d/b/a Palmetto Appliance Company, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 11, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1978.

*53Edward C. Vining, Jr. and Richard A. Burt, Miami, for appellant.

Turner, Hendrick, Guilford, Goldstein & McDonald and Bruce D. Fischman, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals a summary final judgment for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff cross-assigns error to an order striking its prayer for attorney’s fees. Defendant’s answer alleged as an affirmative defense that the plaintiff corporation was not, in fact, a corporation and, as such, was not entitled to maintain the action. Plaintiff filed a reply to the affirmative defense factually denying the defense. No affidavit or deposition in any way controverted the affirmative defense, nor was the defense stricken as legally insufficient. On this state of the record, a summary final judgment was entered upon plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff urges-that the defense is a “paper defense” and, therefore, not a bar to summary judgment. We are unable to determine whether this is true because plaintiff did not submit anything to the trial court to substantiate its position that the issue created by the pleadings did not exist. The summary judgment must be reversed upon the ground that plaintiff did not bear its burden of showing initially that there was no genuine issue of material fact. See *Underwriters Insurance Company v. Sisung,*174 So.2d 461 (Fla.3d DCA 1965).

The order striking plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees must also be reversed because there is nothing in the record to show the inapplicability of the principle stated in *Producers Supply, Inc. v. Harz,*149 Fla. 594, 6 So.2d 375 (1942). We do not determine that attorney’s fees must be awarded, but simply that the prayer was not subject to be stricken as legally insufficient at this stage of the proceedings.

The summary final judgment is reversed; the order striking plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees is reversed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Exploration Drilling International Inc. - Exhibit 10.47






Addendum to the loan agreement dated 28/10/2006 

Extension 

LOAN AGREEMENT 

between 

EDI Exploration Drilling International Holding GmbH

Goethestrasse 61 
45721 Haltern am See 

- in the following referred to as
lender -

and 

EDI Exploration Drilling International GmbH 
represented by
the managing director 
Günter Thiemann 
Goethestraße 59, 45721 Haltern am
See 

- in the following referred to as
borrower -

The loan agreement, to which this addendum applies, is changed,
effective immediately, in § 2 paragraphs 2 and 3 and as follows: 

§ 2 Interest, term and repayment of loan 

	2. 	
      The term shall be extended by approx. 7 months, thus
      ending on 30/06/2008.

	 	 
	3. 	
      The loan shall be repaid on 30/06/2008 into the lender’s
      account.



All of the other provisions of the agreement remain unchanged
and valid. 

	Haltern, on September 1, 2007 	  
	  	  
	  	  
	Signature 	Signature 
	_________________________________________	_________________________________________  
	EDI Holding GmbH 	EDIU GmbH 
	Günterh Thiemann 	Managing director, Rainer Rotthäuser 
	- Lender - 	- Borrower -
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Walter GREEN.

No. 60441.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 27, 1977.

Thomas J. Ford, Jr., Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Stevie BUTTS et al. v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.

No. 61354.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: Stevie Butts applying for certiora-ri, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Catahoula. 352 So.2d 745.

Denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6897** 

ROGER LEE DEAL, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. SERGEANT O ’ NEILL; OFFICER OXINDINE; UNKNOWN OFFICER; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 00552

- CCE

- JEP )

Submitted : September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Roger Lee Deal, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roger Lee Deal, Sr
. , appeals the district court ’ s order denying his request for an injunction and other relief and warning him that any further filings would result in sanctions
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reas ons stated by the district
court. Deal v. O’Neill , No. 1:13

- cv - 00552

- CCE

- JEP (M.D.N.C. June 4, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
#### David Laverne ROUNDTREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1771.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 23, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1977.

*33Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

Appellant was charged with possession of heroin. In due course he came on for trial by jury, was found guilty, was adjudicated by the court and sentenced to a term of 5 years in the state prison with a general credit for all jail time. We affirm the judgment of conviction but remand for a correction of the sentence to' reflect the specific amount of credit time to which the appellant is entitled pursuant to the requirements of Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes.

On this appeal we find two points among those raised by the appellant that warrant treatment by this court.

 The first of such points involves the testimony of the arresting officer pursuant to questions by the prosecuting attorney as follows:

> Q. All right. So, he was arrested at that time?

> A. That’s right.

> Q. All right. Did Mr. Roundtree make any statements of any sort to you?

> A. Not that I can recall.

> MRS. CONDON: I would object to that question and answer by the witness and ask that it be stricken from the record.

> THE COURT: Sustained. Strike it from the record. The jury is instructed to disregard it.

> MR. SKYE: Okay. I have nothing else of this witness, your Honor.

We find, and so hold, that the above testimony falls within the position and rationale of this court in *Clark*v. *State,*336 So.2d 468 (Fla.2d DCA 1976) which is not changed by the particular limited objection and request by appellant’s trial counsel. There is no requirement for the trial court to treat the objection as including a request for mistrial nor is the nature of the testimony such as to elevate it to fundamental error mandating reversal irrespective of objection.

The failure of the trial court to credit the appellant with the specific period of time served in the county jail before sentence as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes requires that the case be *34remanded for appropriate correction in this regard. The appellant need not be present for this purpose.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Jagged Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 28, 2008, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 9, 2008
|                  | 
|By:               |  | /s/ Andrew J. Norstrud 
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer
# DLA Disposition Services equipment to the rescue

/ Published Sept. 8, 2017
San Carlos Park, Florida,
# Agency garners four Pentagon awards 

/ Published July 24, 2017

One Defense Logistics Agency employee and three DLA teams received fiscal 2016 Department of Defense Value Engineering Achievement Awards from the assistant secretary of defense for systems engineering at a July 18 Pentagon ceremony. 

Value engineering analyzes cost, value and quality to improve DoD systems, equipment, facilities, procedures and supplies.

James MacStravic, performing the duties of the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, congratulated the winners in a memo. “This year’s recipients of VE Achievement Awards have executed superior VE-related efforts, providing more capability to the Warfighter through cost savings or cost avoidances, quality improvements, and efficiencies to the Department.” 

DLA’s Value Management Program aims to reduce the cost of materials while maintaining or improving quality, reliability and function. In fiscal 2016, DLA saved more than $234 million through the program. 

Winners were chosen from each DoD component in five categories: program/project, individual, team, organization and contractor. Special awards recognized applications or approaches that expanded the scope of value engineering. DLA’s winners were:
      - Individual: James Dunlap (DLA Aviation)
      - Team:  Should Cost/Price Challenge Team (DLA Aviation)
      -  Organization: DLA Land and Maritime Value Management Program 
      - Special Achievement: DLA Aviation, Aviation Engineering Breakout Project
##### 



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-QSB of GoldSpring, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert T. Faber, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ ROBERT T. FABERRobert T. FaberPresident and Chief Executive Officer May 13, 2005
No. 00-5937.

#### Leonard *v.*Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas, et al.

Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit
      32.2**


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the quarterly report of Magyar Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jon R. Ansari,
      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(2)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and





(3)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.











Date:
      February 8, 2007





/s/
      Jon R. Ansari


Jon
      R.
      Ansari


Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer








25
No. 8982.

#### Hattersley *v.*The Village of Waterville et al.

(Decided April 3, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Messrs. King é Tracy,tor*plaintiff in error.

Messrs: *Smith S Beckwith,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00207-CV

IN RE DPA'S ASSIST THE OFFICER FOUNDATION, INC.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed on June 29, 2018, is denied. This

Court’s order of the same date which stayed the trial court’s order of May 31, 2018 is 

withdrawn and the stay is lifted.

The timetable for compliance with the trial court’s May 31, 2018 discovery order 

and the October 25, 2018 order of the 18th District Court confirming the 249th District 

Court’s order is set at 45 days from the date of this Court’s opinion and judgment.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
In re DPA's Assist the Officer Foundation, Inc. Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins1

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed February 13, 2019

[OT06]

 

1 The Honorable Al Scoggins, Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the 

Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003 (West 2013).
No. 99-7719.

#### Rivera *v.*United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         13,789
<SECURITIES>                                       97
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                       25
<INVENTORY>                                     1,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,395
<PP&E>                                          4,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,062
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          103
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,716
<SALES>                                        59,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               59,198
<CGS>                                          37,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  37,926
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,289
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,550
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,550
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .18
        


</TABLE>