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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
1.   Balance Sheet dated March 31, 1997.
2.   Fifth Dimension Inc. Statements of Operations for the Quarter Ended
     March 31, 1997.
3.   Fifth Dimension Inc. Statements of Cash Flows for the Quarter Ended
     March 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          46,738
<SECURITIES>                                   364,936
<RECEIVABLES>                                  377,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    873,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,340,507
<PP&E>                                         596,224
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,131,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          693,328
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       364,936
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,766,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,131,841
<SALES>                                        366,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               369,035
<CGS>                                          609,390
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  833,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (183,107)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (470,107)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (287,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)
        

</TABLE>
259 La. 798

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Leroy JONES v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51798.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 13, 1971.

In re: Leroy Jones, applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the relief sought.
#### Fred PRO, Appellant, v. Yolanda Julien PRO, Appellee.

No. 73-1026.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 12, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Robert S. Hewitt, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATIONCERTIFICATIONI, Paul D. Tobias, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Mackinac Financial Corporation, certifythat:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mackinac Financial Corporation (the“registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 14, 2007 /s/ Paul D. Tobias   PAUL D. TOBIAS   CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER(principal executive officer)   
31.
#### In the Matter of John Goetschius et al., Respondents, v Board of Education of the Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District et al., Appellants.

[721 NYS2d 386]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review determinations made at a meeting of the Board of Education of the Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District on July 24, 1997, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered May 17, 1999, which, *inter alia,*annulled certain determinations that were made in violation of the Open Meetings Law and awarded an attorneys’ fee to the petitioners.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The use of a metal detector at the entrance to public meetings of the appellant Board of Education of the Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District (hereinafter the Board of Education) did not constitute a per se violation of the Fourth *417Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures (see, *Legal Aid Socy. v Crosson,*784 F Supp 1127). The security measures employed by the Board of Education also did not constitute a per se violation of the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law art 7). However, the provisions of the Open Meetings Law are to be liberally construed in accordance with the statute’s purposes *(see, Matter of Gordon v Village of Monticello,*87 NY2d 124, 127). The Board of Education engaged in a persistent pattern of deliberate violation of the letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Law by, *inter alia,*improperly convening executive sessions and conducting business in a manner inaudible to the public audience *(see, Matter of Goetschius v Board of Educ.,*244 AD2d 552).

Courts are empowered, in their discretion, and upon good cause shown, to declare any act taken by a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Law void in whole or in part *(see,*Public Officers Law § 107; *Matter of Roberts v Town Bd.,*207 AD2d 404). Fixing the appropriate remedy for the Board of Education’s actions is expressly a matter of judicial discretion *(see, Matter of Sanna v Lindenhurst Bd. of Educ.,*85 AD2d 157, *affd*58 NY2d 626). In view of the Supreme Court’s involvement in the Open Meetings Law controversy between these parties since 1996 and the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in annulling certain determinations of the Board of Education which were made in violation of the Open Meetings Law and awarding an attorneys’ fee to the petitioners. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 24.1
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Sentigen Holding Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Fredrick B. Rolff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
Company at the end of, and for, the period covered by the Report.

Date: March 30, 2005

                                            /s/ Fredrick B. Rolff
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Name: Fredrick B. Rolff
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or
as a separate disclosure document.

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO SENTIGEN HOLDING CORP. AND WILL BE RETAINED SENTIGEN HOLDING CORP.
AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
REQUEST.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

December 1, 2010 

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2010-5091 

NORMA C. SULLIVAN AND DONALD E. SULLIVAN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Decided: November 29, 2010 

Nonprecedential Opinion 

______________________ 

Please make the following change: 

Page 5, line 26, change “loses” to --losses--.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          Oct-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            Sep-30-1997

<CASH>                                        3,593
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,811,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                               3,249,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          5,417,137
<PP&E>                                    6,207,034
<DEPRECIATION>                            4,751,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            6,904,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     2,934,945
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                  3,796,302
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                   6,878
<OTHER-SE>                                 (456,394)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              6,904,215
<SALES>                                  11,089,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         11,089,064
<CGS>                                     7,908,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             7,908,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          2,301,377
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (252,192)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             627,278
<INCOME-TAX>                                249,169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         378,109
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                378,109
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 $0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 $0.30

        
                                                                         



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VeritasDGC Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended January 31, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”),I, Thierry Pilenko, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;

 

2.  The information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for theperiods presented as required by such report.

 

March 8, 2006

 

 
| /s/ THIERRY PILENKO |   |
|---------------------|--------|

Thierry Pilenko

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Veritas DGC Inc. and will be retainedby Veritas DGC Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20580 

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of 

□ counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Raging Wire Data Centers, Inc. D09386

11 12 2019 

596632 

□ counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

□ counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES) 

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

number of each counsel or representative entering an partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

appearance in the above proceeding, this Notice of Appearance is being filed. 

Linda Kopp

 lkopp@ftc.gov

Robin Wetherill

 rwetherill@ftc.gov

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20580

Phone Number: 202-326-2267

Fax Number: 202-326-3062

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

Mark Eichorn/Maneesha Mithal

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 5. DATE SIGNED 

(Linda Kopp) 11/12/2019

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission 

Room H-113 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Docket No. In the Matter of 

D09386

Raging Wire Data Centers, Inc.

STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R. § 4.1 

Linda Kopp

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: 202-326-2267

Fax: 202-326-3062

Email: lkopp@ftc.gov

 In connection with the Notice of Appearance filed on November 12, 2019, and pursuant to 16 C.F.R.

§ 4.1 (d), I state that I am eligible to practice before the Commission as a member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia (Bar No. 472355). As requested by 16 C.F.R. § 4.1 (d), I further state that I am a

member of good standing within the legal profession.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Docket No. In the Matter of 

D09386

Raging Wire Data Centers, Inc.

STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R. § 4.1 

Robin Wetherill

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: 202-326-2267

Fax: 202-326-3062

Email: rwetherill@ftc.gov

 In connection with the Notice of Appearance filed on November 12, 2019, and pursuant to 16 C.F.R.

§ 4.1 (d), I state that I am eligible to practice before the Commission as a member of the Bar of the State

of California (Bar No. 323912). As requested by 16 C.F.R. § 4.1 (d), I further state that I am a member of

good standing within the legal profession.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Jacqueline M. WEISBARTH, Appellant, v. The COURT OF RECORD IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, and James McCauley, as Judge of said court, Appellees.

No. 71-1059.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Arthur J. Franza, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Abatement Order filed May 10, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00237-CR

____________

DAVID LEE HART, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1753579

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court appointed Patricia Fortney Sedita to represent appellant on 

appeal. After the appointment, appellant retained Mark Bennett to represent him. 

On April 18, 2022, Bennett filed a motion to substitute as counsel.

An appointed attorney shall represent the defendant until 

. . . charges are dismissed, the defendant is acquitted, appeals are 

exhausted, or the attorney is permitted or ordered by the court to 

withdraw as counsel for the defendant after a finding of good cause is 

entered on the record. 

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2). 

Accordingly, we ABATE this appeal and order as follows:
1. The judge of the 178th Judicial District Court shall consider Bennett’s 

request to substitute and shall determine whether appellant wishes to be 

represented by Bennett as retained counsel or whether appellant wishes 

and is entitled to appointed counsel. 

2. The judge shall see that a record of any hearing is made. The court 

reporter is directed to prepare, certify, and file with the clerk of this court 

a reporter’s record of the hearing. The trial clerk is directed to prepare, 

certify, and file with the clerk of this court a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing any orders regarding Bennett’s request to substitute. The

reporter’s record and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with this 

court by June 9, 2022. 

3. We will hold Bennett’s motion to substitute pending receipt of the 

requested records.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket after the 

requested records are filed in this court. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson.
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 of PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2011, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James T. Barry, Chief Executive 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, to my 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 operations
          of the Company.

                                               By: /s/ James T. Barry
                                                   --------------------
                                                   James T. Barry
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                                   March 17, 2011
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

CASE NAME 

ECM BioFilms, Inc. et al. 

FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

009358 

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in 

proceeding the appearance of 

D counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

D counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

~ counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding, 

Jennifer Mallory (Esq.) 

jennifer.mallory@nelsonmullins.com 

Robert McWilliams (Esq.) 

robert.mcwilliams@nelsonmullins.com 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

Meridian, 17th Floor 

1320 Main Street 

Columbia, SC 29201 

Phone Number: 803-255-9477 

Fax Number: 803-255-9061 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 

(Jennifer L. Mallory) 

2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES) 

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being fi led. 

Fred Wampner 

Accutech Films, Inc. 

620 Hardin Street 

P.O. Box 115 

Coldwater, OH 45828 

Phone Number: 419-678-8700 

Keith Anderson 

Fortune Plastics, Inc. 

1 Williams Lane 

P.O. Box637 

Old Saybrook, CT 06475 

Phone Number 860-388-3426 

5. DATE SIGNED 

3/25/2014 

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission 

Room H-113 

FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11) 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W . 

Washington, D.C. 20580
#### Robert B. LAW and Margaret M. Law, Appellants, v. Margaret Larue WILLIAMS and Marvin M. Parks, Appellees.

No. 72-335.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Hugh MacMillan, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 10.2


Exhibit 10.2




Written description of the loan agreement with Ivan Krikun 




Loan Agreement Between:




Ivan Krikun and Danlax Corp.







Terms of the Loan Agreement:




1.

Mr. Krikun has provided and may provide additional Loans to Danlax Corp. from time to time to pay for company’s expenses.

2.

The Loans are non-interest bearing and payable to Mr. Krikun upon demand.

3.

Mr. Krikun does not have any obligation to provide Loans to Danlax Corp. and may do so only if he wishes.

4.

Mr. Krikun has provided office space free of charge to Danlax Corp. Mr. Krikun agreed to rent it for as long as needed.
#### Ronnie E. McADAMS, Individually, etc. v. Dr. Alfred M. HOLDEN et al.

No. 60722.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Second Petition for writ of review and/or certiorari. E. Baton Rouge Parish. 349 So.2d 900.

Not considered. The judgment is final. C.C.P. 2167. Rule IX § 6.