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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            2090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   294489
<ALLOWANCES>                                     89359
<INVENTORY>                                      32945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                424220
<PP&E>                                          681338
<DEPRECIATION>                                  250915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1849357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           749408
<BONDS>                                         716563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         12315
<OTHER-SE>                                      338450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1849357
<SALES>                                        2194057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2903906
<CGS>                                          1919693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4454246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1838468
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                903537
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               77143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1953136)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1953136)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1953136)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.59)
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc., a
Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the year ended March 31,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Alexis Korybut, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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 operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Alexis
Korybut


Alexis
Korybut


Chief
Financial Officer





May 24,
2010
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27595]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 96-100; Notice No. 1]


Tires and Rims Labeling

Correction

    In notice document 96-33121 beginning on page 68812 in the issue of 
Monday, December 30, 1996, make the following correction:

On page 68813, in the first column, the OMB Clearance Number should 
read 2127-0503.

    Dated: October 10, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-27595 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50886 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. GUADALUPE LORENZO MEDRANO-FLORES Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-514-ALL Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Lorenzo Medrano-Flores raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty pro

vision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

     The undersigned, Jeffrey E. Kelter, President and Chief Executive Officer
of Keystone Property Trust, (the "Registrant"), does hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that based upon a review of the 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").

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

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

                                          /s/ JEFFREY E. KELTER
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 10, 2004
#### Peter A. McCABE, as *Trustee in*Bankruptcy of BYRD COAL COMPANY, Inc., Bankrupt, Appellant, v. Robert GLADSTONE, Jr., Appellee, William F. May et al., Defendants.

No. 177.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 4, 1937.

Herman G. Robbins, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (William Shapiro, of Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for appellant.

David Haar, of New York City, for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 34]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ34.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 293]]

Public Law 104-34
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
          To clarify the rules governing venue, and for other 
              purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 3, 1995 -  [S. 532]>> 

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

SECTION 1. VENUE.

    Paragraph (3) of section 1391(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``the defendants are'' and inserting ``any defendant 
is''.

    Approved October 3, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 532:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-181 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Mar. 30, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 18, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

60) ll-K- (B) -48 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:50 AM Sheet 60 of 325 
P.2 

II-K-(B)-48 

CRITICAL REVIEW OF MODEL INPUTS. 

Letter from E. Medine, EEA to R. Short, EPA:SASD. 

July 30, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-48
#### Georgia GASKINS, a minor, by and through her next friend and natural guardian and mother, Elizabeth Gaskins, Petitioner, v. Carolyn Ann WOODRUFF, a minor, by and *through her*next friend and natural guardian and mother, Lennis C. Woodruff, and Lennis C. Woodruff, individually, Respondents.

No. 69-511.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 3, 1970.

Erik A. Dahlgaard and Thomas A. Hoadley, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & D’Aiuto, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Fred A. Hazouri of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, McKeown & Dell, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant filed a general petition to review a costs’ judgment entered following plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal. The judgment allowed as costs only certain of the items sought by defendant. This petition should be and is treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. City of Hallandale v. Chatios, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 53. Upon review thereof and no abuse of the trial judge’s discretion being demonstrated, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

CROSS, C. J„ and McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
#### Stanley CAVANAUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-152.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 19, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Joel L. RIELS et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants, v. William G. HOWELL et al., Defendants-Appellees-Appellants.

No. 3059.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 18, 1970.

See, also, La.App., 233 So.2d 258.

*257Lloyd F. Love, Ferriday for plaintiffs-appellees-appellants.

Theus, Grisham, Davis, Leigh & Brown, by R. L. Davis, Jr., Monroe, for defendant-appellant-appellee.

Gold, Hall & Skye, by John F. Simon, Alexandria, for defendant-appellee-appel-lant.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals were perfected in the present and in a companion suit, Riels v. Liberty Universal Insurance Company, La.App., 233 So.2d 258. A motion to dismiss was filed in the latter appeal and was sustained by us this date.

In connection with disposition of the motion to dismiss in the companion suit, we note of our own motion the absence of a final judgment in the present appeal. When there is no signed final judgment, an appeal is premature and must be dismissed by the court on its own motion. See Gay v. Gay, La.App.3d Cir., 193 So.2d 537.

The District Court tried the consolidated suits on April 15, 1969 and took them under advisement. On September 2 the court rendered a full opinion discussing the facts and holding that the negligence of the present defendants’ driver was the sole cause of the accident.

This three-page document was entitled “Judgment”. It concluded with a decree for judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. It was read, rendered, and signed in open court.

Nevertheless, although captioned “Judgment”, the major part of the document was really the “Reasons for Judgment”. It was thus listed by the district clerk in the index to the appellate record, incidentally.

If the document was intended to be a final judgment as well as the reasons therefor, it was rendered in violation of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1918 (1960): “A final judgment shall be identified as such by appropriate language. When written reasons for the judgment are assigned, they *shall*be set out in an opinion separate from the judgment.” (Italics ours.)

This 1960 code provision was adopted to end the confusion and difficulty resulting from former practices similar to that followed herein, in ascertaining the date of final judgment, which date determines many procedural delays and substantive rights. See Abramson v. Piazza, La.App. 3d Cir., 198 So.2d 565.

The post-1960 jurisprudence has exacted strict compliance with this code requirement. Under similar circumstances, the courts have dismissed appeals as premature where a document purports to include both full reasons for judgment as well as the decree itself. These rulings have been followed, even where the combined document has identified itself as a “judgment”. Deason v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 204 So.2d 428 (La.App.3d Cir., 1967); Verret v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 200 So.2d 791 (La.App.3d Cir., 1967).

Accordingly, all appeals taken in the present matter must be dismissed as premature, in the absence of a signed formal judgment. This dismissal is, of course, without prejudice to the taking and perfecting of new appeals after effective final judgment is rendered herein.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE in the Interest of Wilmer GARRISON, III.

No. 4336.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. *7,*1970.

*111Robert Glass, New Orleans, for relator.

Michael Karmazin, New Orleans, for respondents.

Before REGAN, CHASEZ and RED-MANN, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

This court directed an alternative writ to the Juvenile Court, ordering either the transmittal of the record (without transcript) to this court, or the production to applicant of a cost-free transcript of those portions of testimony dealing with applicant’s (allegedly coerced) confession admitted into evidence in 1966 proceedings in which applicant was adjudged delinquent and committed to a state juvenile institution.

The record has been transmitted to us. We note that, since our granting of the writ, applicant has been released on parole. We conclude the question of applicant’s entitlement to proceed in forma pauperis has not become moot, since he remains under the effect of the adjudication and subject to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, R.S. 13:1572, although on parole rather than in present custody.

The transcript of the forma pauperis hearing shows that applicant’s mother has lived for some ten years with a consort neither her husband nor the father of applicant. Her consort’s father also resides with them. The mother has in the past earned about $30 a week baby-sitting, but testified she had been unable to work during the year previous to the hearing because of diabetes. The consort earns $69 and nets $57 a week; his father receives “compensation” from an industrial accident of $45 a week. The juvenile judge observed that the combined “family” income exceeds $5,000 annually, placing them outside the poverty class.

But as a matter of law, the applicant has no legal right to any support from the mother’s consort, much less the consort’s father; even the mother has no community interest in the earnings of her consort, much less his father’s. Under these circumstances we conclude applicant is without means to pay for a transcript and, to the extent his attempted court actions make it necessary for him to have any part of it, the transcript must be provided without cost.

An allegation of a coerced confession being admitted into evidence might not entitle one to a transcript in all cases. But here an evidentiary hearing was denied on the ground that the earlier proceeding sufficiently considered the particular allegations now made concerning the voluntariness of the confession. The only way that ruling can be effectively reviewed is by a review of the pertinent portions of the earlier transcript. Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 580, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969).

Our writ is therefore made peremptory and the respondent Judge of the Juvenile Court is ordered to order and furnish to relator, Wilmer Garrison III, without cost to relator, within 30 days of this order, a transcript of those portions of the testimony taken in this matter relating to the voluntary nature of relator’s confession and its admission into evidence.

Writ made peremptory.
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0486 Focus Ready Draft 8/15/2011 ENGINEER: Arnold \ JD PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER: Asahi Kasei America, Inc. USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Label:

CRSS :The substance will slowly react (days) with water to yield the polymer with terminal amine {NH2} groups in place of the isocyanate {N=C=O} groups. Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (08/05/2011): Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P3B1T1 PMN: P1B1T1 // Hyd Pdt: P3B1T1 Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 1 No releases to Water OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3A NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

(P03-324 and P07-600 did not require dermal per SAT). POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: None.
EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0486 Processing: Number of Sites/ Location: 1 1 site in US Days/yr: 12 Basis:Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Incineration High End: 5.0E+0 kg/site-day over 6 days/yr from 1 site or 3.0E+1 kg/yr to: from: basis:

RELEASE TOTAL 3.0E+1 kg/yr - all sites
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation:

Dermal:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0486 Use: Number of Sites/ Location: 1 Days/yr: 63 Basis:Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Air Output 2: 1.2E+0 kg/site-day over 63 days/yr from 1 site to: from: basis:

Incineration High End: 4.8E-1 kg/site-day over 63 days/yr from 1 site or 3.0E+1 kg/yr to: from: basis:

Incineration Conservative: 1.6E-1 kg/site-day over 63 days/yr from 1 site or 1.0E+1 kg/yr to: from: basis:

Landfill Output 2: 1.1E+1 kg/site-day over 63 days/yr from 1 site or 6.8E+2 kg/yr to: from: basis:RELEASE TOTAL 8.0E+2 kg/yr - all sites
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis:
Inhalation:

Dermal:
#### William C. RITTER, Appellant, v. Amy Anne RITTER, Appellee.

No. 77-1103.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 22, 1978.

*385Rollins, Peeples & Meadows and Barbara L. Suhar, South Miami, for appellant.

Guy B. Bailey, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Two points are presented. The first claims an inequitable distribution of the joint assets. The second urges error upon the award of attorney’s fees to the wife.

A division of the joint assets was sought by both parties. The record shows that the wife furnished all of the assets and living expenses of the marriage. The husband’s sole contribution was the management of these assets. Under these circumstances, we hold that the award made has not been shown to be so inequitable as to constitute an abuse of discretion. See *Hegel v. Hegel,*248 So.2d 212 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).

The second point does present reversible error. See *Ross v. Ross,*341 So.2d 833 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); and *Mertz v. Mertz,*287 So.2d 691 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). Where, as here, the usable assets and income of the wife, as shown by the record, far exceed those of the husband, the basis for an award of attorney’s fees to the wife does not exist. Cf. *Markland*v. *Markland,*155 Fla. 629, 21 So.2d 145 (1945).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, except for that portion of the judgment which determines that the wife is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. That portion of the judgment is stricken and the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Judgment amended and affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003)
 
 I, Andrew P. Kaplan, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration (principal financial officer) of Audible, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"):
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) [15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 
 /s/ Andrew P. Kaplan
 Name: Andrew P. Kaplan
 Date: August ___, 2003
EXHIBIT 4.1

                         21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                    2002 DIRECTORS, OFFICERS AND CONSULTANTS
                STOCK OPTION, STOCK WARRANT AND STOCK AWARD PLAN
                                  (THE "PLAN")

WHEREAS, Effective as of February 20, 2003, 21st Century Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company")  amended  its Articles of Incorporation to reflect a 100 to 1 reverse
split  of the Common Stock and the increase of its post-split authorized capital
to  350,000,000  shares,  $.001  par  value per share, consisting of 300,000,000
shares  of  common  stock  (the  "New  Common  Stock")  and 50,000,000 shares of
preferred  stock  (the  "New  Preferred  Stock"),  and

WHEREAS,  immediately  prior  to the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation,
there  were reserved for issuance under the Plan a total of 50,000,000 shares of
Common  Stock, which amount was in excess of the authorized and unissued capital
stock  of  the  Company,  and

WHEREAS,  immediately  following the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation,
there were reserved for issuance under the Plan a total of 500,000 shares of New
Common  Stock,

NOW,  THEREFORE,  THE  PLAN  IS  AMENDED  as  set  forth in this Amendment No. 1

SECTION  1.  Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 1, capitalized terms
have  the  meanings  assigned  to  them  in  the  Plan.

SECTION  2.  Section  3  of  the 21st Century Technologies, Inc. 2002 Directors,
Officers  and  Consultants Stock Option, Stock Warrant and Stock Award Plan (the
"Plan")  is  hereby amended by replacing the phrase "50,000,000 shares of Common
Stock"  with  the  phrase  "10,000,000  shares  of  New  Common  Stock".

SECTION  3.   Wherever  the  term  "Common  Stock"  appears  in  the Plan, it is
replaced  with  the  term  "New  Common  Stock".

SECTION  4.  Any  options,  warrants or other rights convertible, exercisable or
exchangeable  for  Common Stock or rights to purchase Common Stock or securities
convertible into Common Stock issued or granted under the Plan are hereby deemed
to be options, warrants or other rights relating to an equal number of shares of
New  Common  Stock  for  the same price and under the same terms as were granted
with  respect  to  the  Common  Stock.

SECTION  5.  As  amended  by this Amendment No. 1, the Plan shall remain in full
force  and  effect.

SECTION 6. This Amendment No. 1 shall be interpreted and construed in accordance
with  the  laws  of  the  state  of  incorporation of the Company and applicable
federal  law.

21ST  CENTURY  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC.

                   /S/  ARLNAD  D.  DUNN
By:       ___________________________________
          Name:     Arland  D.  Dunn
          Title:    Chief  Executive  Officer


<PAGE>
255 La. 815

#### Leslie LANG and Mrs. Lucille Fornea Lang v. WINN-DIXIE LOUISIANA, INC., and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York.

No. 50438.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1970.

In re: Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 230 So.2d 383/

Writ refused. On the totality of the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.