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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET FOR MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      17,241,057
<SECURITIES>                                   897,856
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,845,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,416,480
<INVENTORY>                                    703,195
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,722,448
<PP&E>                                       8,811,015
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,147,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,166,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,683,914
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       101,540
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,866,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,166,358
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,078,565
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,981,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,893,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               406,283
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,580
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,201,084
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,201,084
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,201,084
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21



                                 SURGICARE, INC.
                                 SUBSIDIARY LIST
                              AS OF MARCH 31, 2003

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    State of
Name of Subsidiary                                  Org.         Owned By                   Ownership %
------------------                                  ----         --------                   -----------

<S>                                                 <C>          <C>                            <C>
Bellaire SurgiCare, Inc.                            Texas        SurgiCare, Inc.                100%
Town & Country SurgiCare, Inc.                      Texas        SurgiCare, Inc.                100%
SurgiCare Memorial Village, L.P.                    Texas        Town & Country SurgiCare,       60%
                                                                 Inc.
Baytown SurgiCare, Inc.                             Texas        SurgiCare, Inc.                100%
San Jacinto Surgery Center, L.P.                    Texas        Baytown SurgiCare, Inc.         10%
Physicians Endoscopy Center, LLP                    Texas        Town & Country SurgiCare,       10%
                                                                 Inc.
Tuscawaras Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLP           Ohio         SurgiCare, Inc.                 51%



</TABLE>
.. 54

-.

OFFlCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Eon. Ernest ouilul County Attorney, El Peso County 31 Paso, Texas 3ear t33.r:

'sehave your req guest is a6 r0ii0lw:

Fortea but said oert et seq., Acts of the 48th ovide for the issuance rtiticate3 to the menbers of the hersin, under certain naarued coxlitio54 s. by force of the term of mid legislative enao2men-lltselr, aan-onijr be issued *.Lfter the United States of diaerioa has ceased %a groseoutlon of the"uar andhas ooneluded a pea68 rith all of her eneki.es oomonl;r knownaa the Ad.3 ~oasrs. * iCT!%T (3ee Aots Regular Session, 48t%Leg., Ch. 336,Hon. &nest -inn, page a

The sreiaption frow the payziiiantof poll taxeo provl&ed for in said legislative anaotmant just mentioned is not as yet available to the members of the A.ruc&Poraes of the United States whoare mentionad in said law, and will not be so available to themuntil “tha Uni%ed 3tat3s of Amerioa has oaased thaproseautioa of the presant xar and has ooncluded a peace with all of her ez~emies,* etc.

If, by the term *!iri~cdForces,: as us&l byyou in your request for anopinion, you refer to the member8 of. the at-ftivc militia of the State of Texas, then webelieve your question is fully answared by our Opinion 240.O-5043, a aopp of rhfch is coalosed for TOUPinformation.

Trusting arehave given you the Information desired, weare Yours rery truly
#### Lendora BENNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-617.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 18, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                             HARBINGER CORPORATION

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended                      Nine Months Ended
                                              -------------------------------       --------------------------------
                                                       September 30,                          September 30,
                                              -------------------------------       --------------------------------
PRIMARY                                         1996                1995               1996                1995
                                              -----------     ---------------       -------------     --------------      
<S>                                           <C>             <C>                   <C>                 <C>
Weighted average common
   stock outstanding
                                              10,798,000            8,750,000        10,664,000            7,858,000
Net effect of dilutive stock options                                                            
   and warrants                                                                                 
       - based on the treasury method           -                     675,000            -                   675,000
                                              ----------         ------------       -----------         ------------      

           Total                              10,798,000            9,425,000        10,664,000            8,533,000
                                              ==========         ============       ===========         ============

Net income (loss) applicable to
   common stockholders                        $ (246,000)        $    146,000       $(8,654,000)        $    522,000
                                              ==========         ============       ===========         ============

Net income (loss) per share applicable
   to common stockholders                     $    (0.02)        $       0.02       $     (0.81)        $       0.06
                                              ==========         ============       ===========         ============

</TABLE>



Computational note:

         In connection with the computations for 1996, all common share
         equivalents have been excluded because their impact on the Company's
         net loss per share is antidilutive.  In connection with the
         computations for 1995, the Company has included the effect of dilutive
         stock options and warrants pursuant to the rules of Securities and
         Exchange Commission.





                                   FORM 10-Q
                                 PAGE 18 OF 18
251 La. 71

#### Houston COTTON, Individually and for the use and benefit of his minor son, Houston Roy Cotton v. ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORPORATION OF SAN FRANCISCO and Polk Chevrolet, Inc.

No. 48858.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1967.

In re: Great American Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany. 200 So.2d 78.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,897
<INVENTORY>                                     19,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,417
<PP&E>                                          16,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,117
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           179
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,905
<SALES>                                        284,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               284,905
<CGS>                                          144,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  144,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               116,959
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,936
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,485
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,936
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.41)


</TABLE>
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1071

To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees of the Federal

Emergency Management Agency may be eligible for certain public safety

officers death benefits, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 28 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. COCHRAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency may be

eligible for certain public safety officers death benefits,

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. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS DEATH BENEFITS

4 FOR CIVIL DEFENSE EMPLOYEES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1204 of the Omnibus

6 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.

7 3796b) is amended in paragraph (7) (relating to the defi8 nition of a public safety officer) by striking out ‘‘or rescue
2

•S 1071 IS

1 squad or ambulance crew’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

2 ‘‘rescue squad or ambulance crew, or an employee of the

3 Federal Emergency Management Agency or civil defense

4 officer’’.

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

6 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment

7 of this Act and shall apply only to employees of the Fed8 eral Emergency Management Agency or civil defense offi9 cers who are injured or die in the line of duty on or after

10 such date.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20906

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH SHANE MASSERANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-92-CR-225-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 24, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Shane Masserano, Texas prisoner # 60109-079, appeals

the district court’s Order of Dismissal denying his Motion to

Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the court’s denial of his

Motion for Reconsideration. 

This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). An examination of the record in this case discloses
No. 98-20906

- 2 -

that no final judgment has been entered as a separate document as

required by FED. R. CIV. P. 58. 

In an order entered on June 18, 1998, the district court

granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and denied Masserano’s

motion to dismiss. Thereafter, on July 17, 1998, Masserano filed

a motion for reconsideration. On September 4, 1998, the district

court entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration. 

On September 16, 1998, Masserano filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal and on October 1, 1998, he filed a

notice of appeal.

If we were to treat the June 18th order as a Rule 58

judgment, Masserano’s notice of appeal would be untimely because

it was filed more than 60 days after entry of the order of

dismissal. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Baker v. Mercedes

Benz of North America, 114 F.3d 57, 61 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Therefore, we DISMISS the appeal. See Townsend v. Lucas, 745

F.2d 933, 934 (5th Cir. 1984). 

Masserano may rectify the lack of a separate document

judgment by a motion to the district court for entry of judgment. 

After entry of the judgment, he may appeal within the time

prescribed by Rule 4(a)(1)(B). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2023045EN.01003702.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/37

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2022 — NT v EMA

(Case T-806/21) (1)

(2023/C 45/63)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 587 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 587

 Concerning the profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Dean A. 
         Gallo, a Representative from the State of New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 1994

 Mrs. Roukema submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Concerning the profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Dean A. 
         Gallo, a Representative from the State of New Jersey.

    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the 
death of the Honorable Dean A. Gallo, a Representative from the State 
of New Jersey.
    Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the 
Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a 
further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes v. Evangelina Lopez Guzman Zaragoza

Appellate case number: 01-16-00251-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-30215

Trial court: 245th District Court of Harris County

Appellant Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes's unopposed motion to assign a new appellate cause 

number for the appeal of the trial court's November 23, 2017 order establishing a receivership in 

this case is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a new cause number, 01-17-00112-

CV, to the receivership appeal. The appellants shall make arrangements for the trial court clerk 

and court reporter to file and certify the records in the separate cause within 15 days of the date 

of this order, including copies of previously filed clerk and reporter's records in other appellate 

causes that remain pending, which shall be duplicated and included in the record in the 

receivership appeal without separate cost. 

Unless an appellant is exempt from paying filing fees or has been declared indigent, the 

appellant must pay the required $205 filing fee to prosecute the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 

(requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless excused) and 20.1 (listing requirements for 

establishing indigence). The filing fee must be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this 

notice.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 16, 2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LEWIS CAMPBELL, III,

Petitioner

v.

CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF 

PENNSYLVANIA AND DR. KAREN 

HJERPE,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 267 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2022318EN.01003701.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/37

---

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Compass Tex v EUIPO (Trusted Handwork)

(Case T-704/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Trusted Handwork - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 318/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Compass Tex Ltd (Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2021 (Case R 0034/2021-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Trusted Handwork as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Compass Tex Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Compass Tex Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
251 La. 72

#### Arnold J. W. STELLY v. The FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al.

No. 48885.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1967.

In re: The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York et al. applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 201 So.2d 24.

Writ refused. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law.

FOURNET, C. J., and McCALEB and HAMLIN, JJ. are of the opinion that a writ should be granted.
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 on Form 10-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of Smart-tek

Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,2006 as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Denis Gallant, 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 Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations

of the Company.



/s/ Denis Gallant

------------------------------

Denis Gallant

Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2006
#### In the Matter on Wilford D. CARTER.

No. 6497.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1978.

Wilford D. Carter, pro se.

Plauché, Smith, Hebert & Nieset by James R. Nieset, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DOMENGEAUX, WATSON and GUIDRY, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

This is an appeal from a judgment which found appellant, Mr. Carter, in direct contempt of court as set forth in LSA-C.C.P. art. 222(1). We issued, ex proprio motu, a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed in that a contempt judgment is not a judgment from which an appeal may be taken. The appellant has timely responded to the rule.

We dismiss the appeal.

*1176As stated by this court in *Pasternack*v. *Lubritz,*280 So.2d 352 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1973), “[o]ur jurisprudence is established that a judgment holding one party in a lawsuit in contempt of court is not a judgment from which an appeal may be taken. A litigant’s remedy in such a case is to apply to this Court for supervisory writs.” (citations omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. All costs of the appeal are assessed to appellant.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2023278EN.01001802.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Região Autónoma da Madeira v Commission

(Case T-131/21) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by Portugal - Madeira Free Zone - Decision finding that the scheme does not comply with Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final, declaring it to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of aid paid under that scheme - Action for annulment - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Meaning of ‘State aid’ - Existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Recovery - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Principle of sound administration - Absolute impossibility of implementation - Limitation - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

(2023/C 278/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Região Autónoma da Madeira (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques and A. Saavedra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Barcew and P. Caro de Sousa, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Região Autónoma da Madeira to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Região Autónoma da Madeira to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---