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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,881
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,362
<INVENTORY>                                     47,543
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,656
<PP&E>                                          72,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,453
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,909
<SALES>                                        197,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,470
<CGS>                                          125,695
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,716
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,795
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,795
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
#### Eugene F. GORDMAN, Executor of the Estate of Max L. Gutkin, Appellant, v. Ben GUTKIN, Appellee.

No. 72-996.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33123]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 01/01-0337]


Pioneer Ventures Limited Partnership; Notice of Request for 
Exemption

    On November 25, 1997, Pioneer Ventures Limited Partnership (the 
``Licensee''), a Massachusetts limited partnership and SBIC Licensee 
number 01/01-0337 filed a request to the SBA pursuant to Section 
107.730(d) of the Regulations governing small business investment 
companies (13 CFR 107.730(d)(1997)) for an exemption allowing the 
Licensee to invest in Vibrint Corporation (Vibrint), of Bedford, 
Massachusetts. Vibrint received prior financial assistance from an 
Associate (as defined by Section 107.50 of the SBA Regulations) of the 
Licensee, and has itself become an Associate of the Licensee.
    Vibrint is currently in need of additional capital, however, the 
Licensee can only offer this assistance to Vibrint upon receipt of a 
prior written exemption from SBA. The exemption requested is the basis 
for this notice, and is required pursuant to Sec. 107.730(g) of the 
Regulations.
    Notice is hereby given that any person may, not later than 15 days 
from the date of publication of this Notice, submit written comments on 
this exemption request to the Associate Administrator for Investment, 
Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20416. A copy of this Notice will be published in a newspaper of 
general circulation in Bedford, Massachusetts.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)
    Dated: December 12, 1997.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 97-33123 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Charles E. DANIELS et al., Respondents.

No. 40161.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.
Exhibit 32(b)





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Dataram Corporation, a New Jersey corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Mark E. Maddocks, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|September 14, 2012 | /s/ Marc P. Palker     
|------------------ | -----------------------
|                   | Marc P. Palker         
|                   | Chief Financial Officer



[A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Dataram Corporation and will be retained by Dataram Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 23




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
O'Charley's Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-39872, No. 33-51316, No. 33-51258, No. 33-83172, No. 33-69934, No. 333-63495,
and No. 333-59484 on Form S-8 and No. 333-103287 on Form S-3) of O'Charley's
Inc. of our report dated February 5, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of O'Charley's Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 29, 2002 and December
30, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders'
equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 29, 2002, which report appears in the December
29, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of O'Charley's Inc. Our
report refers to a change in method of accounting for goodwill and other
intangible assets in 2002.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
April 1, 2003
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bernard HAMILTON.

No. 60885.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: Bernard Hamilton applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Caddo.

Not considered. Applicant’s appeal from a conviction for the same offense is pending in this court.
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 Daxor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, David Frankel, 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:

(1)          The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and 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 Daxor Corporation.

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ David Frankel      
| |                        
| |                        
| | David Frankel          
| | Chief Financial Officer
| | May 11, 2009           

---
#### GORDONS JEWELRY COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., Petitioner, v. Hyman FELDMAN and Esther Feldman, Respondents.

No. 76-2662.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 15, 1977.

*1118Wallace W. Tudhope of Smalbein, Eu-bank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Orlando, for petitioner.

Thomas W. Gibson of Leonhardt, Trickel, Leigh & Gibson, Orlando, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari in an action formerly cognizable at law, petitioner seeks review of an order denying its motion to dismiss count one of respondents’ complaint. We deny certiorari without de-, ciding the merit of petitioner’s contention. Petitioner will have a full, adequate and complete remedy available by appeal from the final judgment if it should be aggrieved thereby. Petitioner urges several reasons why it would be expedient to have the interlocutory order reviewed at this time, none of which are legally sufficient to warrant us granting certiorari. *Siegel v. Abramowitz,*309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); *Solitron Devices, Inc. v. Reiland,*311 So.2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); *Santini Brothers, Inc. v. Grover,*338 So.2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); and *Johnson v. General Motors Corporation,*350 So. 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

CERTIORARI DENIED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.14

                               AMENDED AGREEMENT

         This amended  Agreement  is made as of August 17, 2001,  by and between
Amcast Industrial Corporation (the Company) and Byron O. Pond (the Optionee).

                                   WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS,  the  Optionee  and the  Company  are  parties to that  certain  Option
Agreement dated February 14, 2001 (the Agreement) and;

WHEREAS, the Optionee and the Company wish to amend the Agreement;

Now therefore the Company and the Optionee agree as follows:

1.   All capitalized terms used herein shall be defined in accordance with the
Agreement.

2.    Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

         2. Vesting

         The  Option  Shares  shall  vest and  become  exercisable  as  follows,
         contingent upon the Optionee being employed by the Company on each such
         vesting date:  85,000 shares on June 1, 2001;  82,500 shares on January
         2, 2002; and 82,500 shares on January 1, 2003; provided,  however, that
         if the  Company  and/or  its  shareholders  receive  an  offer  that is
         accepted by the Company's  Board of Directors and the  shareholders  (a
         "Change  in Control  Offer")  for a Change in  Control  (as  defined in
         Section  8.02 of the  Executive  Employment  Agreement)  prior  to June
         1,2001, then all unvested shares of the Option Shares shall immediately
         become vested as of the  effective  date of the final Change in Control
         Offer upon which the Change in Control  was based was made.  The Option
         shall be  exercisable  for a period of five (5) years  from the date of
         grant of the Option  Shares.  The Optionee  shall forfeit all right and
         interest to any unvested Option Shares and if he is not employed by the
         Company on the vesting date.

3.
Miscellaneous.  This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
     the parties hereto and their heirs, successors, assigns and representatives
     and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Ohio.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed as of the day
and year first written above.

                                    AMCAST INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION


                                    By:    /s/ Leo W. Ladehoff
                                             Leo W. Ladehoff
                                             Chairman of the Board


(CORPORATE SEAL)



<PAGE>


Attest:

/s/ Denis G. Daly
Secretary



                                       /s/  Byron O. Pond
                                                Byron O. Pond
                                                Optionee
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1711
JACKIE MCCANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1514-A) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Jackie McCann, Appellant Pro Se. Cynthia Lee Tianti, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jackie McCann appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on her complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCann v. Fairfax County Gov’t , No. CA-97-1514-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                           3,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,978)
<INVENTORY>                                     66,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,108
<PP&E>                                         164,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                (49,914)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 352,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   352,000
<SALES>                                        572,474
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               572,474
<CGS>                                          389,893
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  389,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,298
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,863
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,810
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,053
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.92
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2302 

To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the exemption for aggregation 

of emissions from oil and gas sources, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2021 

Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. BEYER, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. MORELLE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, 

Ms. NORTON, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SMITH

of Washington, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. WELCH, Mr. COHEN, Mr. NADLER, 

Mrs. HAYES, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. LYNCH, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. JONES, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, Mr. SIRES, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. NEGUSE, Ms. BONAMICI, 

and Mr. HUFFMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the exemption 

for aggregation of emissions from oil and gas sources, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Closing Loopholes for 

5 Oil and other Sources of Emissions Act’’ or the ‘‘CLOSE 

6 Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2302 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXEMPTION FOR AGGREGATION OF 

2 EMISSIONS FROM OIL AND GAS SOURCES. 

3 Section 112(n) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 7412(n)) is amended by striking paragraph (4). 

5 SEC. 3. HYDROGEN SULFIDE AS A HAZARDOUS AIR POL6 LUTANT. 

7 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

8 Agency shall— 

9 (1) not later than 180 days after the date of 

10 enactment of this Act, issue a final rule adding hy11 drogen sulfide to the list of hazardous air pollutants 

12 under section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 

13 U.S.C. 7412(b)); and 

14 (2) not later than 365 days after a final rule 

15 under paragraph (1) is issued, revise the list under 

16 section 112(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(c)) to 

17 include categories and subcategories of major 

18 sources and area sources of hydrogen sulfide, includ19 ing oil and gas wells. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00666

- CV

Javier GARZA , David Macdonald, Albert Macdonald, and Dana M. Brittenham, in their

individual capacities and their capacities as trustees of the Teresa Garza Trust,

Appellants

v.

Joel ANDERSON

, Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CVK000509D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

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

AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are assessed against appellants.

SIGNED August 9, 2023.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
255 La. 149

#### MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY v. Eula Mae FRUGE.

No. 50227.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Eula Mae Fruge applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 227 So.2d 606.

Writ refused. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion a writ should be granted.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
#### Rayfield MARTIN, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. BROWARD BUILDERS SUPPLY et al., Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

No. 42895.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 21, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents; would deny Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
#### Phed SPENCER, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1084.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1973.

*230Max P. Engel and David B. Javits, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., for appellee.

Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is a petition for review of an order by the trial court denying appellant’s application for a supersedeas bond.

Appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to seven years imprisonment in the state prison. Following a timely, notice of appeal, the trial judge denied a motion for supersedeas bond, on the grounds that robbery is a crime which may be punished by life imprisonment and, even though the sentence was actually only seven years, the granting of bail was forbidden by Art. I, Section 14, of the Florida Constitution, F. S.A. and by CrRP 3.130(a), 33 F.S.A.

The constitutional provision and the rule upon which the trial court relied provides a right to bail for all persons accused of a crime, prior to conviction, unless the charge is a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and “the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption is great.” Following conviction, bail is not a matter of right, but still lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Younghans v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 308.

We think the standards outlined in the Younghans case should be applied in the instant cause. Appellant was sentenced to only seven years imprisonment, and the court should consider bail in the light of the actual severity of the sentence as well as other circumstances relevant to the question of whether or not appellant is likely to flee the jurisdiction during the pendency of his appeal.

We have concluded that the trial court erred in ruling that it was precluded from considering the appellant’s application for bond because of Art. I, Section 14, of the Florida Constitution and the rule of criminal procedure. Therefore, the cause is remanded to the trial judge with directions to consider the application for bond. In the event that bond is denied, the trial court should state his reasons for denial in accordance with the Younghans case.

It is so ordered.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                            ------------------------

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-99764 and File No.
33-41474) of our report dated February 9, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996
and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1997, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

New York, New York
March 26, 1998
#### Frank C. O’HALLERON, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. L.E.C., INC.

No. 60997.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: L.E.C., Inc. applying for supervisory writs of certiorari and/or review. Parish of St. Tammany.

Writ refused.