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
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          56,842
<SECURITIES>                                   265,666
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               565,263
<PP&E>                                         492,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,435
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,284,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,617
<BONDS>                                      1,064,633
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     28,802
<COMMON>                                           522
<OTHER-SE>                                   (149,498)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,284,231
<SALES>                                        259,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               259,636
<CGS>                                          199,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  199,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               236,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (262,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       848
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (261,869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (261,869)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.32
        

</TABLE>
#### SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ANDREWS et al.

No. 294.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 1, 1937.

Straus & Osserman and A. M. Lowenthal, all of New York City (Stanley Osserman, A. M. Lowenthal, and Theodore F. Tonkonogy, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Allen E. Throop, of Washington, D. C., and John F. Davidson, of New York City (John F. Davidson, of New York City, and Joseph A. Fanelli, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Securities and Exchange Commission filed a bill of complaint pursuant to section 21(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. § 78u) to enjoin the defendants from violating the provisions of section 9 (15 U.S.C.A. § 78i) with respect to stock of Dictagraph Products Company, Inc. While the suit was pending upon bill, answer, and plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, the Commission, on November 11, 1936, made an order pursuant to section 21(a) of the act (15 U.S.C.A. § 78u) for an investigation to determine whether to suspend unlisted trading privileges in Dictagraph stock pursuant to section 12(f), as amended (15 U.S.C.A. § 781(f). Under date of November 17, 1936, a subpoena duces tecum was issued by the investigating officer directing Dictagraph Products Company, Inc., to appear before him. Thereupon the defendants filed their cross-bill of complaint to enjoin the Commission and its agents “from all activity with respect to” Dictagraph stock. Judge Mack dismissed the cross-bill for want of jurisdiction and want of equity.

The decree must be affirmed on the ground that the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the cross-bill. It is perfectly clear that a suit against the Commission, an administrative agency of the United States, can be maintained only in the courts and upon the terms specified in the statute. Illinois Cent. R. R.. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 245 U.S. 493, 504, 38 S.Ct. 170, 62 L.Ed. 425. Section 25(a) of the act (15 U.S.C.A. § 78y) provides how and where a person aggrieved by an order of the Commission may obtain ju*442dicial review of such order. The order of November 11th, which merely initiated an investigation, was interlocutory and not reviewable under section 25. See Jones v. Securities and Exchange Comm., 79 F.(2d) 617, 619 (C.C.A.2), certiorari denied 297 U.S. 705, 56 S.Ct. 497, 80 L.Ed. 993. Even if it were reviewable, review could only be had in a Circuit Court of Appeals. For the District Court to restrain the execution of an order of the Commission would run counter to the plainly expressed purpose of the statute.

As the court lacked jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to consider the other contentions advanced by the appellants.

Decree affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CALDERA, INC. FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Hung Dasian Truong v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00390-CR

Trial court case number: 1172979

Trial court: 339th District Court of Harris County

In 2009, appellant, Hung Dasian Truong, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the 

second-degree felony offense of manslaughter, and the trial court committed him to inpatient 

treatment at Rusk State Hospital. The trial court has renewed the inpatient commitment orders on 

a yearly basis. In the above-captioned case (“the 2016 appeal”), appellant appeals the trial court’s 

May 3, 2016 recommitment order, arguing that the order was not supported by sufficient evidence.

The order that is the basis of the 2016 appeal expired on May 3, 2017, prior to submission 

of this appeal. The trial court held a hearing and signed a new recommitment order on May 1, 

2017. Appellant appealed that order as well, and that appeal was assigned appellate cause number 

01-17-00343-CR (“the 2017 appeal”).

This Court abated the 2017 appeal after appellant failed to timely file a brief. On December 

12, 2017, we issued an order of continuing abatement, ordering the trial court to hold a hearing to 

determine whether appellant wishes to pursue the 2017 appeal and to enter findings of fact and 

conclusions of law.

The 2016 appeal and the 2017 appeal involve substantially similar issues and challenges to 

successive recommitment orders. Although the 2016 appeal has already been submitted, these two 

appeals should be considered together. We therefore withdraw the 2016 appeal from submission 

and sua sponte abate the 2016 appeal until such time as the trial court has filed the requested 

findings and conclusions following the ordered abatement hearing for the 2017 appeal. The two 

appeals will then be reinstated at that time.

We further request, at the time the two appeals are reinstated, that the parties provide 

additional briefing concerning what effect, if any, the May 1, 2017 recommitment order has on the 

2016 appeal.
This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: January 4, 2018
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 3, 2006, accompanying the December 31,2005 consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Unitil Corporation and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 in the Registration Statements of Unitil Corporation and subsidiaries on Form S-8(File No. 333-114978 effective April 29, 2004), Form S-3 (File No. 333-42264 effective July 26, 2000) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-42266 effective July 26, 2000). 

 

/s/ Vitale, Caturano & Company Ltd. 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

February 21, 2006
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 of Medizone International, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we Edwin G. Marshall,
Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Hanni, 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 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.


                                       /s/ Edwin G. Marshall
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Edwin G. Marshall
                                       Chief Executive Officer


                                                /s/ Steve Hanni
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Steve Hanni
                                       Chief Financial Officer
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. A. O. ROBERTS, Respondent.

No. 40470.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Mississippi v. D. L. CLINE.

No. 47339.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 27, 1973.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, and Neal B. Biggers, Jr., Dist. Atty., Corinth, for appellant.

Cunningham & Cunningham, Booneville, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prentiss County; L. T. Senter, Jr., Judge.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, SMITH, ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Section 1350

In connection with the Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clifford D. Nastas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.

Dated: May 23, 2006

By:

/S/    CLIFFORD D. NASTASClifford D. NastasChief Executive Officer and Director


In connection with the Report, I, Jeffrey J. Siemers, Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative
and Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.

Dated: May 23, 2006

By:

/s/    JEFFREY J. SIEMERSJeffrey J. SiemersExecutive Vice President, Chief Administrativeand Financial Officer and Secretary




1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AMY B. SCHWARTZ and JAY F. SCHWARTZ

, Appellant s ,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N .A.
, Successor b y Merger t o BAC HOME LOANS

SERVICING LP f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,1
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3942

[ March 4, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Scott R. Kerner , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502012CA01369XXXXMB

.

Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs Legal , PLLC, Miami, for appellant s

.

No respo nse filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We redesignate this proceeding as an appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate the final foreclosure judgment in this 2012 case. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5). The petition for writ of certiorari is treated as the initial brief, and the trial court’s order is s ummarily affirmed. Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

Appellants defaulted on their home loan in January 2010. The foreclosure suit was filed in 2012 and litigated until a final foreclosure judgment was entered in October 2017. This Court affirmed the foreclosure judgment

. See Schwartz v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 267 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

The motion to vacate now on appeal attempt s to relitigate issues

concern ing standing that this Court rejected on direct appeal. The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of these issues. Fl a. Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano , 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (“ The doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions o f law actually decided on appeal2 must govern the case in the same court and the trial cour t, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings .”).

Appellants’ allegations of fraud were rejected on direct appeal, and the trial court did not err in denying p ost

- judgment discovery as this Court has already concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that “appellants had not diligently conducted discovery.”

Schwartz , 267 So. 3d at 414.

Summarily affirmed.

M AY
, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         354,332
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  821,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                    446,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,553,426
<PP&E>                                       2,563,220
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,116,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,449,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          462,026
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,705
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,387,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,449,340
<SALES>                                      6,237,102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,237,102
<CGS>                                        2,035,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,229,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,971
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,470)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,470)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)



</TABLE>
Exhibit No. 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  March 10, 2005



| | /s/ Marc T. Giles                     | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| | Marc T. Giles
Chief Executive Officer | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.  This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

COY RUCKER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-2989 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 30, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardee County; Michael E. Raiden, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Blain A. Goff, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MORRIS, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER





I, Tami J. Story, certify
that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10KSB of Earth Search Sciences, Inc.;





2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this 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
report;





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





a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, 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
report is being prepared;





b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and





c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting; and





5. The registrant's other certifying
officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, 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 and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and





b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.








Date:
      April 23 , 2008
            /s/
      Tami J. StoryTami J.
    StoryChief Financial
      Officer