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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  Schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
unaudited  Statement of Financial  Condition at February 25, 2000 and  unaudited
Statement of Operations for the three-months  ended February 25, 2000, which are
contained  in the body of the  accompanying  Form 10-Q and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                         1

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Nov-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                         Feb-25-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        31,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       610,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           32,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         610,596
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (1,461)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (1,917)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,917)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Fischer Imaging Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harris S. Ravine,Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/  HARRIS RAVINE             |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Harris Ravine                            |
| *Chief Executive  Officer and President* |
| March 31, 2005                           |

 

----
In the Matter of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASIDNGTON,DC

HOTTONENTERPRISES, INC., FAADocket No. [To be Assigned] DMS No.: FAA2013-1081 Respondent FAARegion: Western Pacific Judge: Richard C. Goodwin

RESPONDENT'S NOTICE OFAPPEARANCE To: Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin and to Complainant: 

### NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Timothy I. 

### McCulloch hereby appears as counsel ofrecord for Respondent Hotton Enterprises, Inc.. Copies ofall pleadings, notices, orders and all other documents relating to this action canbe served on Hotton Enterprises, Inc. addressed as follows: Timothy I. 

### McCulloch, Esq. GORDON & REES, 

### LLP 111 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 tmcculloch@gordonrees.com Respectfully submitted this 29th day ofApril, 2014 GORDON & 

### REES, LLP

I 

# 0 Timothy I. 

### McCulloch Attorneys for RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that onthis date I have sentby facsimile where indicated and via Federal Express addressed as follows:

Dated: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY

ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration Attn: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 600 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Adam Runkel, Esq., Counsel for Complainant Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Western-Pacific Region, APW-7.12 Federal Aviation Administration 15000 Aviation Boulevard Hawthorne, CA 90250 Telephone: (425) 227-2914 *Facsimile: (310) 725-6816 Hon. Richard C. Goodwin, U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn: PatriciaMatthews *Facsimile: (202) 366-7536
April29, 2014

Trish Hoffinann / ,

2
#### INDIAN RIVER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Florida, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee.

No. DD-419.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 24, 1977.

S. Gordon Blalock, of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Isaac, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Dawson A. McQuaig, Gen. Counsel, William Lee Allen and William L. Coalson, Asst. Gen. Counsels, Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude no error occurred. Appellant’s argument that the lower court erred in directing verdict against it as to its $75,872.43 claim by reason of delay caused by eight change orders mutually agreed upon by appellant and ap-pellee is without foundation. Had appellant intended to claim more, such additional items of expense should have been included within the change orders. They were not. Having failed to do so, appellant may not now attempt to rewrite a contract properly executed. *Jacksonville and A. R. Co. v. Woodworth,*26 Fla. 368, 8 So. 177 (1890).

*1140The argument raised that the lower court erred in giving an instruction to the jury was not objected to by appellant. The objection was thereby waived. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b).

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
#### DUFF *v.*STATE

[No. 330,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided June 15, 1962.*

The cause was submitted to Bruñe, C. J., and Hammond, Prescott, Horney and Sybert, JJ.

Submitted on brief by *Walter M. Baker,*for appellant.

Submitted on brief by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General,*and *Robert S. Bourbon, Assistant Attorney General,*and /. *Albert Roney, Jr., State’s Attorney for Cecil County,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

A jury found appellant guilty under all three counts of two indictments, tried together, the first charging assault with *127intent to murder and assault and battery, and the second, carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced generally to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary upon the two counts of the first indictment. Sentence under the second indictment was suspended. In this appeal from both judgments the sole contention is that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Articles 16 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

The record shows that after an altercation in which each pushed the other, appellant drew a pistol from his pocket and, while the unarmed victim was moving away from him, shot him twice in the arm and attempted to shoot him four more times, the cartridges misfiring.

Assault with intent to murder carries a possible sentence under Art. 27, § 12, Code (1957), of two to fifteen years, and assault and battery, a common-law offense, carries no specific penalty, but is subject to the limitation imposed by the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Maryland Declaration of Rights. *Burley v. State,*226 Md. 94 (1901).

While appellant concedes that the sentence imposed is within the maximum provided by law, he argues that it is “out of line with sentences imposed in other similar cases.” He referred us to no other cases, however. Without unnecessary elaboration, it has repeatedly been held by this Court that any sentence within the limit prescribed by law is valid and hence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of constitutional protections, *Ridley v. State,*228 Md. 281 (1962); *Martin v. State, 227*Md. 407 (1962), even though more lenient sentences have been imposed in other cases involving the same charge. *Apple v. State,*190 Md. 661 (1948).

Judgment Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1064 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1064

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
   treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of 
 furnishing clinical psychologist services under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
   treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of 
 furnishing clinical psychologist services under the Medicare program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Mental Health Access Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS AS PHYSICIANS FOR PURPOSES 
              OF FURNISHING CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 1861(r) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' before ``(5)''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
        (6) a clinical psychologist, but only with respect to the 
        furnishing of qualified psychologist services described in 
        subsection (ii) for which the psychologist is legally 
        authorized to perform by the State and who is acting within the 
        scope of the psychologist's license (or other authorization 
        under State law)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION of Periodic Financial ReportPursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I, Thomas ODonnell, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Sand Technology Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended and that the
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sand Technology
Inc.

Date: December 4, 2009

| | By: | (s) Thomas ODonnell                       
| | --- | -------------------------------------------
| |     | Thomas ODonnell                           
| |     | President and Chief Executive
      Officer

This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for
any other purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a
separate disclosure document.

---
#### Charles J. CHEVES, Jr., Appellant, v. Barbara S. CHEVES, Appellee.

No. 72-62.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Goodrich, Hampton, Thompson & Boylston, Bradenton, for appellant.

Julian D. Clarkson, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for ap-pellee.

MANN, Judge.

The parties were divorced before our statutes1 were changed to provide that the wife’s ability to support children is to be taken into account in determining who is to support the children in what amount. Fla.Stat. § 61.14 (1971), F.S.A. provides for modification upon a showing of change in circumstances “of either party.” The trial judge properly allowed inquiry into *changes*in the wife’s circumstances, but improperly restricted inquiry into her wealth at the time of the divorce, at which time it was irrelevant, assuming the husband’s ability to support. A deterioration in the husband’s earnings is clearly shown and found as fact. Therefore the matter is open, and the outcome should be such “as equity requires, with due regard to the changed circumstances and the financial ability of the parties.” 2

The appellant has shown the requisite change in circumstances to warrant modification. Having thus opened the question, the wife’s circumstances become relevant.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

1

. Fla.Stat. § 61.13(1) (1971), F.S.A.

2

. Fla.Stat. § 61.14(1) (1971), F.S.A.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,659
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                       138
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,184
<PP&E>                                          16,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,155
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,080
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,242
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,254
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,259)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,053
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,790
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,790
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39


</TABLE>
256 La. 615

#### James W. REEDER, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of his Unemancipated Minor Son, Charles Reeder v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and Tiger Mix Concrete Co., Inc.

No. 50657.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1970.

In re: Allstate Insurance Company and Tiger Mix Concrete Co., Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 235 So.2d 111.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Latif M. Nathani, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Preferred Voice, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b. evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):



a. all significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
and



b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Latif M. Nathani         
|Latif M. Nathani             
|Chairman and CEO             
|(Principal Executive Officer)
|November 12, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 33216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1990-000]


Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing 
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Stonepeak 
Kestrel Energy Marketing LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding 
Stonepeak Kestrel Energy Marketing LLC's application for market-based 
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is July 31, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33757661707c5d5f5a5d56604643435c414773555641501d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="db9d9e899894b5b7b2b5be88aeababb4a9af9bbdbea9b8f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15200 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00472-CV

B.K., Appellant

V.

T.K., Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 442nd District 

Court

of Denton County (19-6678-442)

May 27, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. We affirm that portion of the trial 

court’s judgment that grants the divorce. We reverse the remainder of the judgment 

and remand the case for a new trial.

It is further ordered that each party shall bear their own costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 
By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth