alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 8-K**

**CURRENT REPORT**

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  December 15, 2007

 

**ADUDDELL INDUSTRIES, INC.**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

| **Oklahoma**                                  |   | **000-24684**           |   | **73-1587867**                   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdictionof incorporation) |   | (CommissionFile Number) |   | (IRS EmployerIdentification No.) |

**14220 South Meridian**

**Oklahoma City, Oklahoma**                          **73173**

(Address of principal executive offices)              (Zip Code)

**(405) 692-2300**

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

| [   ] | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| [   ] | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12(b)) |
|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| [   ] | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| [   ] | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
Message Development and Report Writing

(8 hours)

Course Overview

Turning audit work into a finely honed, impactful message can be a challenge for audit teams 

and reviewers. For audit teams, it may be difficult to discern the most critical findings and 

evidence, which then complicates reviewers’ efforts to understand a potential message and 

provide feedback. Because report findings must be communicated clearly and on time to be 

useful to agencies and policy makers, not having a strong report message before starting to 

draft the report creates confusion, time delays and frustration for both the writer and reader. 

This course provides guidance and tools and techniques to help audit teams efficiently develop 

and communicate sound messages that meet standards, are clear to reviewers, and facilitate 

the development of a high-quality report. This course is offered over 2 half days.

CPEs: 8

Who Should Attend

Both new as well as seasoned auditors in team leader or team member roles will gain 

knowledge and new perspectives about the stages of message development, tools for 

developing findings, and the principles for clearly communicating audit findings.

Course Objectives

Participants will be able to

• Understand how the audit objective(s) and findings shape the report message

• Follow the stages of message development

• Identify and assess the message emerging from the data

• Work effectively within the audit team and with other stakeholders in the audit organization 

to reach agreement on the report message

• More clearly communicate audit findings in written reports

Course Topics

Characteristics of a Quality Report

• What makes a quality report

• Elements of a finding

o Criteria, Condition, Cause, and Effect

• Types of audit questions/objectives

Moving from Data to Message

• The stages of message development

o Audit planning, selecting researchable questions
o Gathering evidence, analyzing data, developing findings

o Developing a sound message

o Completing an outline and reaching message agreement

• Tools and approaches for developing findings

o Role of visuals

o Periodic reviews

o Findings matrix

o Writing on walls

• Importance of building high-performing audit teams

Communicating Audit Results

• The writing process

o Planning

o Writing

o Revising

o Polishing

• Reader-based vs. writer-based writing techniques

• Key writing principles

o Give readers answers to questions

o Give readers a map to the answers

o Tell readers the significance of information before providing the details

• Inductive vs. deductive writing
# C_2004094EN.01003601.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/36

---

Removal from the register of Case C-14/03 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/97)

By order of 5 December 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-14/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

---

(1)  OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of HyperDynamics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent P.
Watts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec.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 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.

Date:  October 14, 2003                       By:  /s/  Kent P. Watts
                                                   --------------------
                                                   Kent P. Watts
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


                                       29
<PAGE>
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-084-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

IRWIN HICKS, JR.

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 1783

LT Case No. 201 0

- CF

- 0 01 532

- A

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. _____________________________/

Decision filed August 8, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

f or Lake County,

G. Richard Singeltary , Judge.

Irwin Hicks, Jr., Arcadia, pro se

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General

, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean

Parrish , Assistant Attorney General,

Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

JAY

, HARRIS and SOUD, JJ., concur.
ACCEPTED 04-15-00544-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/6/2015 9:43:31 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
Requested Materials - Capacity Factor Information RobertJ Wayland to: Cortney_Higgins
11/21/2011 03:48 PM

Cc: Bill Maxwell

Cortney -

This is the first of five emails providing some of the information you requested last week. To try and reduce confusion, I am not resubmitting the area source information because nothing has changed on this issue since the two files we provided at proposal. If you can't find that information, just let me know and I'll resubmit that information to you as well. Call either Bill or me if you have any questions.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division
Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

*********************************************************

Oil Boilers_cap factor_102811.xlsx

Coal_Boilers_cap factor_111711.xlsx
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent
------

Coastal Financial Corporation

                                                                State of
Subsidiary                         Percentage Owned           Incorporation
----------                         ----------------           -------------


Coastal Federal Savings Bank               100%               United States

Coastal Federal Mortgage, Inc.             100%               South Carolina

Coastal Investor Services, Inc.            100%               South Carolina

Coastal Technology Solutions               100%               South Carolina

Coastal Real Estate Investment
 Corporation (3)                           100%               North Carolina

Coastal Federal Holding
 Corporation (1)                           100%               Delaware

Coastal Mortgage Bankers and
 Realty Co., Inc. (1)                      100%               South Carolina

Shady Forest Development
 Corporation (2)                           100%               South Carolina

Sherwood Development
 Corporation (2)                           100%               South Carolina

Ridge Development
 Corporation (2)                           100%               South Carolina

501 Development
 Corporation (2)                           100%               South Carolina

North Beach Investment,
 Inc. (2)                                  100%               South Carolina
--------------

(1)      First tier subsidiaries of Coastal Federal.
(2)      Second tier subsidiaries of Coastal Federal and first tier subsidiaries
         of Coastal Mortgage.
(3)      First  tier  subsidiary  of  Coastal   Federal   Holding   Corporation,
         consolidated   with  Coastal   Federal   Savings  Bank  for  Regulatory
         Reporting.
##### 



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


Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Friedman Industries,
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jack Friedman, Chairman of the Board and
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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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.

Dated: August 13, 2004



| |                     
| | --------------------
| | By /s/ JACK FRIEDMAN
| |                     
| | Name: Jack Friedman 

| |        |                                                  
| | ------ | -------------------------------------------------
| | Title: | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Harold Lee JACKSON.

No. 61851.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1978.

*767Jerry A. Kirby, Monroe, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara B. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Carl Par-kerson, Dist. Atty., Steven A. Hansen, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Harold Lee Jackson was charged by bill of information with armed robbery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64, was tried before a jury and found guilty, and was sentenced to fifteen (15) years at hard labor without benefit of parole. Defendant then appealed to this Court, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. *State v. Jackson,*352 So.2d 701 (La.1977). After this Court handed down its decision, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on grounds that there was newly discovered evidence which if it had been introduced at trial would probably have changed the verdict. La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(3). Because it was filed within one year of the verdict, the motion was timely despite the fact that defendant had already been sentenced and his conviction and sentence affirmed. La.C. Cr.P. art. 853. After a hearing the trial court denied the motion. Defendant now seeks to appeal to this Court from that denial.

This Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over the matter. In criminal cases our appellate jurisdiction may only be invoked when a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional or when the defendant is appealing from a felony conviction or actual imposition of a fine exceeding five hundred dollars or a sentence of imprisonment exceeding six months. La.Const., Art. 5, § 5(D) (1974). As defendant has already availed himself of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, his remedy is properly by application for supervisory or other writs. La.Const., Art. 5, § 5(A) and (E). *See also State*v. *Little,*353 So.2d 255 (La.1977). If the motion had been filed prior to the rendition by this Court of its decision on the appeal and defendant had requested a remand to the trial court for a hearing, the situation would be different. *See*La.C.Cr.P. art. 853; *State v. Shannon,*360 So.2d 193 (La.1978).

Although we have determined that defendant did not have a right of appeal, we treat his appeal as application for writs under Rule 1, Section 11 of the Rules of the *768Supreme Court of Louisiana. To afford the right of both parties to apply for rehearing, Rule 9, § 6 of the Louisiana Supreme Court Rules, the writ is granted. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the assigned error and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. *See State v. Harvey,*358 So.2d 1224 (La.1978); *State v. Tucker,*354 So.2d 521 (La.1978); *State v. Provost,*352 So.2d 661 (La.1977).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
#### Mary Michael Edwards ROGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Willard ROGE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11859.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

May 23, 1972.

Hendrick & Carmouche, by Paul J. Carmouche, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

Robinson & McKneely, by Roland V. McKneely, Jr., Bossier City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AYRES, PRICE, and HEARD, JJ-

HEARD, Judge.

From a judgment granting his wife a separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment, Harold Willard Roge, Jr., perfected this appeal.

He specifies as error the following: (1) that the trial court erred in failing to find that the actions of the wife in refusing to move into the home provided for her by her husband constituted abandonment on her part, and (2) in the alternative, and only in the event that this court finds the trial court made no error in failing to find that the wife abandoned her husband, the trial court erred in finding the husband abandoned his wife.

Mary Michael Edwards Roge and Harold Willard Roge, Jr., were married on April 1, 1967. They made their home with Virgina Lombardino Krizan, Mary Roge’s mother. On the morning of August 6, 1971, Harold Roge left home as usual. He returned at noon when he told his wife he had rented a mobile home. Mary Roge and her mother testified that Harold Roge never asked his wife to move into the trailer. Rather, they say, he told his wife to pack his clothes as he was leaving. Harold Roge and his brother, Mickey Roge, testified that Harold Roge asked Mary Roge to move into the trailer with him and she refused. At any rate, Harold Roge moved out of his mother-in-law’s house and into the trailer. His wife remained at her mother’s with their minor child. It should be noted that Mary Roge was eight and one-half months pregnant at the time Harold Roge moved into the trailer.

The trial judge apparently resolved the discrepancy in testimony in favor of Mary Roge. He apparently believed that Harold Roge never asked his wife to move into the trailer with him. We need cite no cases for the proposition that we accord great weight to the trial judge’s findings of credibility.

*59As we accept the view that Harold Roge never asked his wife to join him, but rather told her to pack his clothes as he was leaving, we have no trouble holding that the wife did not abandon her husband. We are not unaware of the numerous cases holding a wife is bound to follow her husband wherever he chooses to live. However, we cannot see that this principle applies where the husband accords the wife no reasonable opportunity to follow him.

We hold that Harold Roge’s actions constituted abandonment of his wife. He rented the trailer on the morning of August 6, 1971 without ever consulting his wife or forewarning her. He arrived at home and told her to pack his clothes as he was leaving. He left and never returned.

We find no manifest error in the judgment below and it is therefore affirmed with costs to be borne by appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q
THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000039092
<NAME> FRIEDMAN INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,330,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,796,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 19,494,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,932,659
<PP&E>                                      19,501,460
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,386,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,470,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,098,083
<BONDS>                                      4,200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,184,662
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,529,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,470,416
<SALES>                                     26,664,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,664,262
<CGS>                                       24,510,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,661,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                909,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                   309,169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            600,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   600,151
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT J

CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 196

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:236
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 197

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:237
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 198

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:238
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 199

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:239
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 200

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:240
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 201

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:241
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 202

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:242
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 203

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:243
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 204

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:244
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 205

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:245
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 206

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:246
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 207

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:247
CRI Genetics, LLC Complaint - Page 208

Case 2:23-cv-09824 Document 2-3 Filed 11/20/23 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:248