alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE BANKER'S STORE, INC.

                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 The Banker's Store, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Paul Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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



                                       By: /s/ PAUL D. CLARK
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Paul D. Clark,
                                           President and CEO
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)


October 21, 2002
April 8, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN RE JAKESIA SADE C ELESTINE , Relator

NO. 14

- 14

- 00133

- CV

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPU S 247th D istrict Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 21521

This Court heard this cause after granting and issuing a writ of habeas corpus on February 14, 2014. This Court holds that the combined judgment of contempt and order of commitment ente red January 30, 2014 in the 247th District Court, Harris County, Texas, in Cause No. 2012

- 21521, is void in part. Therefore, this Court grants relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus in part, and accordingly strikes the void language of the trial cour t’s order as detailed in our corresponding opinion. This Court further holds that relator has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s order is void in toto , or that relator is entitled to release from the trial court’s order of commitment. Therefore, this Court denies relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus in part.2

We further order the Clerk of this Court to issue an alias capias for the arrest of relator, Jakesia Sade Celestine, and order that she be remanded to the custody of
the Sheriff of Ha rris County, Texas, to be confined as ordered by the 247th District Court, Harris County, Texas, in Cause No. 2012

- 21521 pursuant to the combined judgment of contempt and order of commitment dated January 30, 2014 by Judge Carolyn Marks Johnson , as amended by the opinion of this Court issued in this

cause.
No. D-2219.

#### In re Disbarment of Petz.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see *ante,*p. 1034.]
#### Henry F. ETHERIDGE, ex rel., ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MORPHY-RICHARDS, INC., Appellee.

No. O-324.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 27, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, 1971.

Adams & White, Pensacola, for appellant.

Hipsh & Thornton, Pensacola, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J„ and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-18-026]

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

United States International Trade Commission.

# Time and Date:

June 15, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

# Place:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# Status:

Open to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

                    1.                     *Agendas for future meetings:*                     None.                

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-1103 (Second Review) (Activated Carbon from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by June 27, 2018.

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: June 5, 2018.

William Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-12363 Filed 6-5-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>   1
ParenteRandolph

The Power of Ideas



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Escalon Medical Corp.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Escalon Medical
Corp. and subsidiaries (the "Company") at June 30, 2001 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended June 30, 2001. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Escalon Medical
Corp. and subsidiaries at June 30, 2001 and 2000, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
June 30, 2001 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.


                                        Parente Randolph, LLC


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
August 17, 2001
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

PROMISSORY NOTE PAYOFF AGREEMENT 

Morrison & Foerster LLP (“Holder”), states as follows: 

1. That Holder is the legal and beneficial holder of a certain Promissory Note dated on or about January 25, 2013 in the principal amount of $1,125,000
(“Note”) made by Pure Bioscience, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Maker”). 
 2. That neither the Note nor any of the
rights of the Holder thereunder have been sold, assigned, hypothecated, pledged or otherwise transferred or disposed of by Lender to anyone whomsoever. 

3. Upon receipt of $500,000.00 by Holder, on or about December 23, 2013, Holder agrees that the Note has been paid and fully satisfied in all respects,
and Holder releases all claims for payment of monies due under the Note. 
 4. Holder hereby agrees to execute and deliver such further documents and
instruments, and to take such further actions as may be reasonable and necessary to fully implement the provisions of this Promissory Note Payoff Agreement. 

Dated: December 18, 2013 
  

			
	HOLDER: Morrison & Foerster LLP
	
	 /s/ Patrick M. Cavaney

	By:	 	 Patrick M. Cavaney

	Title:	 	Chief Operating Officer


  

			
	ACKNOWLEDGED: Pure Bioscience, Inc.
	
	 /s/ Peter C. Wulff

	By:	 	Peter C. Wulff
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
For the Periods Ended September 30 
(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

                                        Third Quarter         Nine Months
                                       1998       1997       1998       1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income........................   $48,131    $56,288   $186,072  $160,584
Preferred dividends...............        --         --         --        --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income available to common
  shareholders....................   $48,131    $56,288   $186,072  $160,584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average shares:
Common shares.....................   107,218     96,248    105,477    96,523
Convertible preferred shares......        --         --         --        --
Stock awards......................        66         51         63        47
Stock options.....................     3,049      2,996      3,063     2,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average diluted common
 shares...........................   110,333     99,295    108,603    99,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic earnings per share..........   $  0.45    $  0.58   $   1.76  $   1.66
  (net income available to common
  shareholders divided by weighted
  average of common shares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diluted earnings per share........   $  0.44    $  0.57   $   1.71  $   1.61
  (net income divided by weighted
  average diluted common shares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings per share and weighted average share amounts 
have been restated for adoption of SFAS No. 128.
### J^^^AcN l O f TADGERSO N CONSULTIN G \St i OPEi^AJinU

410 6 President s Wa

v " " " '" ^ DeWitt , M

I 4882 0 li}i ! Fll'i j ? | r: > :> . m

Februar y 10,201 2 Doeke i Managemen t

Facilit y U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenu e S E Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor
. RoomW12-14 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 -Rer:^Sun.Coiintry.S!ot.Exemption—Docket-Numbe r FAA-2012-008 9 - Ladie s an dGentlemen : Su n Countr y Airline s ha s requeste da n exemptio n fro

mih e slo t limi l fo r Ronal dReaga

n Washingto n Nationa l Airpor t (DCA ) set

fort h i n § 93.123(a) , to permi t

th e FA A lo creat e ai r carrie r slot s durin g certai n limite dhour s fo r Sun Country' s use . Th e propose dai r carrie r slot s woul dreplac e tw o slo t exemption s unde r

DO T Orde r

2010-12-1 6 awarde dt o Sun Country
. O

n January 6 , 2012 , th e Unite dState s Cour t o f Appeal s fo

r Ihe Distric t

o f Columbi aCircui t

vacate dth e DO T Order , an dSun Country will los e it s existin g servic e betwee n DC

A an dLansing' s Capital Regio n International Airport
. Specificall y Su n .Countr y desire s on e dail y slo t

durin g eac h o f

th e 1000 an d1100 hours
. Th e propose d exemptio n woul dpermi t

Su n Country to continu e operatio n it s existin g service s an d avoi da n inequitabl e resul t

o f th e Court' s order
. A s Vic e Chai r

o f th e Mid-Michigan Busines s Trave l Coalitio n an daLansin g regio n busines s owne r

fo r pas t 4 0 years , I wis h to emphasiz e th e importanc e o f continue d servic e betwee n DC

A an dLansing , 'fh e flights ar e ver y highl y utilize dan dth e succes s demonstrate dto-dat e i s showin g n o sign s o f reversal
. Th e flights are provin g to b e a n clea r economi c boos t

fo r th e Greate r

Lansin g region ; an dI woul dlik e to addm

y voiecjo_
. .the.man y who-areusingth c servic e an dar e cognizan t o f th e economi c impac t

o f th e losin g th e flights. I earnestl y urg e approva l o f th e Su n Country' s request . Th e Su n Country DC

A servic e i s essentia l to th e economi c growt h o f th e Greate r

Lansin g Region
. Th e dail y servic e i s th e onl y larg e aircraf t (737-800 ) servic e l o Washingto n Reaga n Airport , i

n th e stat e o f

Michigan outsid e o f

Detroit
. Prio r

to Sun Country , th e regional community ha

drequeste dth e introductio n o f thi s servic e fro

mnumerou s othe r airlin e operator s withou t

success . Accordingly , i

t i s critica l tha

t ihe.FA A take th e necessary step s to ensur e th e continuatio n o f th e Su n Countr

y slots.at th e establishe d' flight time s i n suppor t o f th e Greate r

Lansing' s busines s an deconomi c growth
. 'You

r immediat e approva l o f

thi s exemption , s o tha

t Su n Country ca

n begi n to ente r

flight schedule s fo

r sal e fo r th e balanc e o f

2012 , will b e greatl y appreciated
. Sincerely ,
Raymon aIE

. laagexso t Presiden t an dCEO " Tadgerso n Consultin g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman

Julie Brill

Maureen K. Ohlhausen

Joshua D. Wright 

In the Matter of

MCWANE, INC., 

 a corporation, and 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

 a limited partnership. 

 Docket No. 9351

 

ORDER RESCHEDULING ORAL ARGUMENT

On June 11, 2013, the Commission issued an Order scheduling the Oral Argument in this

matter for Wednesday, August 7, 2013, at 2:00 pm. On June 13, 2013, Respondent McWane,

Inc. filed a Motion requesting that the Oral Argument be postponed until August 13, 2013 or

thereafter, because its lead counsel and general counsel will both be out of the country until that

date. Respondent’s Motion states that Complaint Counsel takes no position on its Motion.

The Commission has determined to reschedule the Oral Argument for Thursday,

August 22, 2013, at 2 p.m. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT the Oral Argument in this matter be and it hereby is

rescheduled for Thursday, August 22, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., in the Federal Trade Commission’s

Hearing Room 532, Headquarters Building, located at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT each side will be allotted forty-five minutes to

present its argument. Respondents will have the opportunity to open the argument and will be

permitted to reserve up to ten minutes for rebuttal. If either side wishes to provide the

Commission with a short written or electronic compilation of material to facilitate its

presentation during the Oral Argument, any such compilation may contain only public

information that is already in the record of the proceeding, and copies must be filed with the

Secretary of the Commission and provided to opposing counsel no later than Thursday,

August 15, 2013, at 5:00 p.m.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

ISSUED: June 19, 2013 Secretary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JANET AND SCOTT BRUNERMER,

Petitioners

v.

APOLLO BOROUGH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 286 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

JANET AND SCOTT BRUNERMER,

Petitioners

v.

APOLLO BOROUGH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 287 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

JANET AND SCOTT BRUNERMER,

Petitioners

v.

APOLLO BOROUGH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 288 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

JANET AND SCOTT BRUNERMER,

Petitioners

v. :

:

:

:

:

: No. 289 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court[ 286 WAL 2023, 287 WAL 2023, 288 WAL 2023 and 289 WAL 2023 ]

- 2

APOLLO BOROUGH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of April, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
1 Gift cards offered by retailers (such as stores and restaurants) fall under the

Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction, while those offered by depository institutions do not. 

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency has issued a guidance on disclosures and marketing

issues for gift cards issued by national banks. See OCC Bulletin 2006-34 (Aug. 14, 2006). 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 14, 2007

James Shan

 

Re: In the Matter of Kmart Corporation, Kmart Services Corporation, and

Kmart Promotions, LLC, corporations

FTC File No. 062 3088 

Dear Mr. Shan:

Thank you for the comments you submitted regarding the above-referenced matter. Your

comments were placed on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, and were given serious consideration by the Commission.

The Commission anticipates that this proposed consent order will send a strong message

that retailers1

 must adequately disclose these material conditions when selling gift cards. Indeed,

over the last few years, the Commission staff has observed that many retailers have already

changed their marketing practices. While many retailers eliminated expiration dates or fees

altogether, staff has found generally that disclosures by retailers still imposing fees have

improved. After considering all of the factors that must be weighed in evaluating any settlement,

including the specific facts, consumer injury, and the need to ensure that the remedies deter

similar behavior by other retailers, the Commission concluded that the strong injunctive

provisions and mandatory refund provision provide a positive result for consumers and an

appropriate resolution of this case.

After considering your comments, the Commission has determined that the public

interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without

modification. Respondents will be required to comply with the Order’s injunctive and

reimbursement provisions, and will be subject to potentially large civil penalties if they violate

the Order.
Page 2

Please remember that you may access the Commission’s Consumer Hotline at (202)

326-3569 for updated information about how to receive a refund if your Kmart gift card was

charged dormancy fees. 

Thank you again for your comments. The Commission is aided in its analysis by hearing

from a variety of sources in its work, and it appreciates your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz concurring in

part and dissenting in part.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
268 La. 361

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Herman J. WALLACE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51316.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Herman J. Wallace applying for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, certio-rari and/or prohibition.

Writ denied. Application moot, since evidentiary hearing will be ordered by trial court.
#### Walter GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-124.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 21, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender; and Vera Winter Lee, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction in a jury trial on charges of attempt to commit murder in the first degree for which he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein and our consideration thereof requires a conclusion that appellant has failed to demonstrate that reversible error was committed in the trial court. Pitts v. State, 185 So.2d 164 (Fla.1966); Sylvia v. State, 210 So.2d 286 (Fla.App.3rd, 1968). Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### LANIER CO., INC. OF the MID-SOUTH v. Dr. Harvey B. WRIGHT.

No. 47028.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 19, 1973.

John H. Downey, Jackson, for appellant.

Gibbes, Graves, Mullins & Bullock, Laurel, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jones County; J. Shannon Clark, Chancellor.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Fred PATROX, Respondent.

No. 39560.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 7, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1971.

Patrick A. Podsaid, Coral Gables, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Alfred M. Carvajal, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Respondent in this case filed a plea of guilty (Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, Art. XI, Rule 11.06(11), 32 F.S.A.), to charges brought against him by The Florida Bar, which were stated to be as follows:

> “That the Respondent was retained by JAMES ESCHINGER to represent him as his attorney for the purpose of collecting his share of the proceeds of his late father’s estate.

> “That on or about May 26, 1967, the Respondent received a check in the amount of $6,715.78 made payable to JAMES ESCHINGER. That the Respondent endorsed JAMES ESCHINGER’S name on said check and deposited the proceeds in his Trust Account.

> “That the Respondent, without making any distribution to JAMES ESCHINGER, withdrew from his Trust Account $6,715.78 belonging to JAMES ES-CHINGER, and appropriated said monies for his own use and purposes.

> “That for a long time thereafter and up to approximately April 7, 1968, the *460Respondent failed and refused to make an accounting to JAMES ESCHINGER for the $6,715.78 due and owing him.

> “That on or about April 17, 1968, the Respondent did make full and complete restitution to JAMES ESCHINGER.”

On these allegations, the Respondent was charged with violating his oath as an attorney, violating Rule 11.02 of Art. XI of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Rules 1, 27 and 30 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys.

The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar found Respondent guilty as charged and recommended that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, and thereafter until he shall have demonstrated his rehabilitation and his fitness to resume the practice of law. The Board of Governors also recommended that the Respondent be taxed the costs of proceedings, amounting to $94.50.

After examination of the file and review of the case, this Court approves and adopts the recommendations of The Florida Bar for punishment.

It is adjudged that the Respondent, Fred Patrox, a member of The Florida Bar, be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years and thereafter until he shall demonstrate his rehabilitation and fitness to resume the practice of law. It is adjudged that The Florida Bar shall have and recover its costs herein in the sum of $94.50 for which let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.