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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         185,328
<SECURITIES>                                     4,342
<RECEIVABLES>                                  564,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    333,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,114,765
<PP&E>                                      22,657,281
<DEPRECIATION>                            (15,686,204)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,241,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,482,830
<BONDS>                                        874,251
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,972
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,518,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,241,087
<SALES>                                        613,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               624,660
<CGS>                                          403,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  691,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (92,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (82,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,399)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 28, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 28, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21A0754. LINDA J. CARTER v. ZACK CARTER, JR. et al.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On January 06, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than January 19, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  441,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,144
<INVENTORY>                                     32,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               479,869
<PP&E>                                       5,320,702
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,289,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,665,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          606,579
<BONDS>                                        834,913
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,510
<PREFERRED>                                      7,600
<COMMON>                                       650,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     182,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,665,893
<SALES>                                      1,274,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,274,621
<CGS>                                          423,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  881,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                349,313
<INCOME-TAX>                                   118,717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            230,596
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   230,596
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### ROBERT ARMSTRONG *vs.*THOMAS F. PEARCE.

Though a scroll is a sufficient sealing of an instrument, some seal must appear on its face. The words “ witness my hand and seal" are not sufficient.

Action on the case on a promissory note, dated 26th of April, 1831. Pleas, non-assumpsit, payment, set-off and limitation.

*Mr. Wolfe*moved a nonsuit, because th,e form of action was mis*352taken; the instrument being under seal, the action should be debt, and not case.

*Platt,*for plaintiff.

*Wolfe,*for defendant.

*Mr. Platt*

denied that the instrument was under seal. There was no seal to it; though the note ran “ witness my hand *and seal.”*

*The Court*

refused the nonsuit. A seal upon wax is not necessary ; but something designed to answer the purpose of a seal is necessary. The expression in the body of the note “witness my hand and seal,” does not make the seal; and there is not even any thing to leave to the jury, to show there was ever a seal made to the note. It may seem absurd to give consequence to a mere scroll seal made by the flourish of a pen; but such a seal is as good at this day as the wax seal was formerly. Once it answered the purpose of identification, being marked with a device belonging to the party who used it; now the identification is produced by the signature; and the seal now as well as formerly, fixes the character of the instrument to which it is affixed. This is a useful purpose. It is well understood that when a seal is used, it imports deliberation and solemnity in the transaction ; that it imparts an importance and finality to it, which do not belong to instruments not under seal.

This use of a seal is equally important as when the impression ,was made upon wax; and it would be dangerous to-imply the seal, where no other evidence existed of the party ever having executed a paper under seal, than the expression “ witness my hand and seal.” (53 *Eng. Com. Law Rep.,*232.)

Verdict for plaintiff.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 365 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 365

    Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to limit the 
availability of appropriations for office salaries and expenses of the 
  House of Representatives to one year and to require excess amounts 
 appropriated for that purpose to be used for open-market purchase of 
      outstanding interest-bearing obligations of the Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 1994

 Mr. Hefley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to limit the 
availability of appropriations for office salaries and expenses of the 
  House of Representatives to one year and to require excess amounts 
 appropriated for that purpose to be used for open-market purchase of 
      outstanding interest-bearing obligations of the Government.

    Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``8. It shall not be in order to consider any measure appropriating 
amounts for salaries and expenses of the House unless such measure--
            ``(a) prohibits availability of any such amount for 
        obligation for that purpose after the end of the fiscal year 
        for which the amount is appropriated; and
            ``(b) requires that any such amount not so obligated be 
        used for open-market purchase of outstanding interest-bearing 
        obligations of the Government.''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-24-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                        61061000
<SECURITIES>                                 148836000
<RECEIVABLES>                                 52817000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  260112000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             553172000
<PP&E>                                      1468100000
<DEPRECIATION>                               657720000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1503872000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        366618000
<BONDS>                                      178820000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      60257000
<OTHER-SE>                                   804408000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1503872000
<SALES>                                     2667028000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2667028000
<CGS>                                       1857334000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2555251000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            13372000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              111777000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  43962000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           67815000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  67815000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, S. James Miller, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and




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




Date: April 13, 2012

ImageWare Systems, Inc.



By: /s/ S. James Miller, Jr.S. James Miller, Jr.Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Larry ZAMBITO, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42861.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 14, 1972.

Certiorari dismissed. 264 So.2d 136.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### John Edward HERMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332; Robertson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 304; Reis v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 666; Oliver v. State, Fla.1971, 250 So.2d 888; Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).
261 La. 1068

#### Mrs. Effie Busby ROZELLE v. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company.

No. 52490.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1972.

In re: The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Ouachita. 260 So.2d 757.

Writ denied; on the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.

McCALEB, C. J., is of the opinion that the application should be granted.
##### 



CERTIFICATION 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: November 3, 2005/s/ Marshall O. LarsenName: Marshall O. LarsenTitle: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Scott E. KuechleName: Scott E. KuechleTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 87
#### PARKE-DAVIS & CO., a corporation, Petitioner, v. Mary R. CROFT, C. G. YORK and Division Hospital, Inc., a corporation, Respondents.

No. 40898.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 12, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 161.

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

BOYD, J., dissents.
#### ELIAS MORRIS *vs.*JONES & SPENCE, partners.

One partner cannot bind the firm by deed, without special authority.

If a partner executes a single bill in the name of the firm, it binds himself alone.- ,

The obligee cannot recover against the firm on *the deed,*for it is the deed only of the party sealing it; nor upon the simple contract, for that is merged in the deed.

' This was an action of debt on a sealed instrument, executed by John Spence, in the name of Jones & Spence, for money borrowed by the firm. The declaration was special on the instrument, and the common money counts were added.

*Layton,*for plaintiff.

*Cullen,*for defendant.

*Cullen,*for defendant,

contended that as the money was lent to Spence on the security of his note under seal, this merged the simple contract; and bound him, though it did not bind the firm. One partner cannot bind another, under seal, without proof of- authority. (1 *Wend. Rep.*326; *2 Harr. Rep.*147.) A note extinguishes the remedy on the simple contract. The only remedy is on the security taken. (1 *Kinne Comp.*99; *Chit. Cont.*782; 3 *East*257; 10 *Com. Law Rep.*54; *2 Johns. Rep.*213; *Story Part.*525, 237, 238, 176; *Colly.*262; 1 *Wend. Rep.*326.)

Layton.

—We have proved a loan o£ $100 by plaintiff to Jones & Spence, and that Spence executed a sealed instrument in the partnership name. This did not bind the firm; and did not merge the simple contract remedy against Jones & Spence. The declaration is both on the note, and in general assumpsit. If a party declare on a special agreement, and fail to prove it, he may recover on the common counts. *(Ros. Ev.*175.)

The first count is on a single bill under seal, by Jones & Spence, which we have failed to prove, as it is only the deed of Spence. We fall back then on the common counts to recover the consideration of the note. *(Ros. Ev.*175; 1 *East*55; 1 *Ch. Pl.*200.)

*The Court*

charged,—1st. That the plaintiff could not recover on the special count on the single bill of Jones & Spence, because the bill being under seal was obligatory on Spence alone, and was not the deed of Jones; as Spence had no authority to bind his partner by such an instrument. 2d. That he could not recover on the count for money lent, because the taking the single.bill of Spence for the money' so lent, extinguished the remedy on the simple contract against the partners; and the plaintiff’s remedy was against Spence alone on the bill. Whereupon the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.
#### In the Matter of Jessie R., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Claranne B., Appellant; Genesee County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 5.)

[656 NYS2d 999]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Matter of Rhiannon B.*(237 AD2d 935 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.—Neglect.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  749,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                    56,921
<INVENTORY>                                     53,119
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               803,755
<PP&E>                                      10,203,275
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,395,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,374,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,282,360
<BONDS>                                      1,466,786
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     49,984
<COMMON>                                     1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     263,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,374,463
<SALES>                                        735,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               735,268
<CGS>                                          278,458
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  527,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                180,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            108,096
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   108,096
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 00-923.

#### McGuffage et al. *v.*Krislov et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### ROTHMOOR ESTATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. John COLEMAN, Town of Belleair Building Inspector, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-168.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
TITLE: "On Demand Digital Map Printing" /PROGRAM 1836-SP

TERM: APRIL 1, 2014 to MARCH 31, 2015 (w/ options)

Basis Cornerstone Copies

Item No. DESCRIPTION of State 040 Code 23493

Award UNIT RATE COST

I. COMPLETE PRODUCT: (except for Items II - IV)

1. Format 

A

(a) Black ................................................... per printed side

(1) Makeready and/or Setup 1 x 5.00 5.00(2) Running Per 100 Copies 2 x 100.00 200.00

(b) Full color or a color other than Black ..per printed side

(1) Makeready and/or Setup 19 x 5.00 95.00(2) Running Per 100 Copies 51 x 100.00 5,100.00

2. Format B

(a) Black ...................................................per printed side

(1) Makeready and/or Setup 3 x 5.00 15.00(2) Running Per 100 Copies 7 x 275.00 1,925.00

(b) Full color or a color other than Black ...per printed side

(1) Makeready and/or Setup 1 x 5.00 5.00(2) Running Per 100 Copies 2 x 275.00 550.00

3. Format C

(a) Black ...................................................per printed side

(1) Makeready and/or Setup 3 x 5.00 15.00(2) Running Per 100 Copies 5 x 450.00 2,250.00

(b) Full color or a color other than Black ...per printed side

(1) Makeready and/or Setup 1 x 5.00 5.00(2) Running Per 100 Copies 2 x 450.00 900.00

II. PRIOR TO PRODUCTION COPY:

 .......................................................per order 28 x 35.00 980.00

III. PAPER: ..............per square foot......per 100 leaves

(a) White Bond (20 lb.) 20 x No Charge

(b) White Bond (24 lb.) 90 x 5.00 450.00

(c) White Bond (28 lb.) 40 x 8.00 320.00

IV. ADDITIONAL OPERATIONS

(a) Folding setup charge ...both formats ...........per order 2 x 10.00 20.00

(b) Folding ...Format A ........................per 100 leaves 44 x 20.00 880.00

(c) Folding ...Format B ........................per100 leaves 10 x 20.00 200.00

(d) Folding ...Format C ........................per100 leaves 5 x 25.00 125.00

(e) Hand Collating .......................................per map 200 x 0.05 10.00

(f) Shrink-film packaging .......................per each wrap 824 x 0.30 247.20

V. PREMIUM PAYMENTS:

Percentage increase....................................____

% 5.00% x

CONTRACTOR TOTALS $14,297.20

DISCOUNT if any 1.000% 142.97

DISCOUNTED TOTALS $14,154.23

AWARDED

 PAGE 1 OF 1
# Release of Personal Property from Escrow

                - Title:  Release of Personal Property from Escrow 
                - Form #:         OF91      
                - Current Revision Date:  01/1990
                - Authority or Regulation:  FAR (48 CFR) 53.228(o)
                - Special Instructions:   **Notice: This form is intended for use by government contractors and contracting personnel for compliance with and management of financial security requirements in Federal Government contracts. Any other use is void of purpose.** 

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top