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
COMPANY'S FORM 10Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,236
<SECURITIES>                                     7,118
<RECEIVABLES>                                      336
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,889
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,695
<PP&E>                                           2,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,645
<SALES>                                         27,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,129
<CGS>                                           22,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     68
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        68
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
#### Flowers *v.*Trotlos.

(Division B.

March. 25, 1935.)

[160 So. 581.

No. 31639.]

*306Harry K. Murray, of Vicksburg, for appellant.

*307Wm. I. McKay and Leonard E. Nelson, both of Vicksburg, for appellee.

Anderson., J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Final judgment for appellee was rendered by the circuit court of Warren county on a claimant’s issue against appellant and the sureties on her forthcoming bond. From that judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal.

Appellee recovered a judgment in the county court of Warren county against Clark Flowers, the husband of appellant, for the sum of six hundred seventy-seven dollars and fifty cents. On that judgment execution was issued and levied on certain personal property. Appellant claimed that the property belonged to her and not to her husband, and was therefore not subject to be taken under the execution; she filed her claimant’s affidavit ¡accordingly with forthcoming bond, and kept the propérty. The judgment of the county court was rendered and *308entered on the 27th day of June, 1934. From that judgment appellant attempted to appeal to the circuit court, and to that end gave an appeal hond with supersedeas on the 10th day of July, 1934, more than ten days after the final judgment was rendered. Appellee made a motion to quash and vacate the supersedeas bond for causes unnecessary to refer to. That motion was heard on the 29th day of August, 1934, and overruled upon condition that appellant execute a new appeal bond with supersedeas within ten days from that date. Appellant attempted to comply with that leave, executed another appeal bond with supersedeas on September 8, 1934, and filed the same with the clerk on that day.

There was no affidavit by appellant filed within ten 'days from the rendition of the final judgment in the county court asking for additional time within which to prosecute the appeal. Section 704, Code of 1930, as amended by Laws 1932, chapter 25G, section 1, provides that appeals from county courts to the circuit courts shall be taken and bond given within ten days from the date of the entry of the final judgment on the minutes of the county court, provided, however, that the county judge may, within the ten days, for good cause shown by affidavit, extend the time, but in no case exceeding sixty days from the date of the final judgment. Regardless of which bond is considered, whether the first one or the last one, more than ten days from the entry of the judgment attempted to be appealed from had expired when it was executed, and there was no affidavit by appellant filed within the ten days asking for an extension of time. In fact, she filed no affidavit at any time asking for an extension. The statute is mandatory and jurisdictional. The circuit court cannot acquire jurisdiction of an appeal from the county court, unless the statute is complied with. Appeal must be taken within ten days from *309the entry of the final judgment, or the time extended on affidavit within ten days showing good cause for the extension.

Affirmed.
#### Robert P. SWYERS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-706.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 6, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, Charles W. Musgrove and Jeffrey H. Barker, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus Robert P. Swyers sought and obtained appellate review of his 1953 conviction of second degree murder because his direct appeal was found to have been frustrated by state action. Having considered oral argument of counsel, together with the briefs and record on appeal, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate reversible error. The judgment and sentence is affirmed and the writ of habeas corpus discharged.

Judgment affirmed; habeas corpus discharged.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-96-2018]


Foreign-Trade Zone 76--Bridgeport, Connecticut; Application for 
Expansion of Subzone 76A; ASML US, LLC; Wilton and Bethel, Connecticut

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Bridgeport Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 76, requesting 
an expansion of Subzone 76A on behalf of ASML US, LLC, located in 
Wilton and Newtown, Connecticut. The application was submitted pursuant 
to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 
81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It 
was formally docketed on July 2, 2018.
    Subzone 76A was approved on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 44389, July 31, 
2014) and consists of the following sites: Site 1 (29.23 acres) 71, 73 
& 77 Danbury Road, Wilton; and, Site 2 (3.65 acres) 7 Edmund Road, 
Newtown.
    The applicant is requesting authority to expand the subzone to 
include additional sites as follows: Proposed Site 3 (11.78 acres) 59 
Danbury Road, Wilton; and, Proposed Site 4 (2.68 acres) 7 Francis 
Clarke Circle, Bethel. No additional authorization for production 
activity has been requested at this time. The existing subzone and the 
proposed sites would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 
76.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of 
the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the 
address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 20, 2018. 
Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to September 4, 2018.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fc4eefbe7e3eaeae1a1cde0f6eceacffbfdeeebeaa1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6edc7d2cecac3c3c888e4c9dfc5c3e6d2d4c7c2c388c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14618 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SI 0-1 00901-0X0 

wyilll 

Kosciusko Economic Development 

Corporation 

Secretary Ray LaHood 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington. DC 20590 

Wednesday, August 26,2010 

RE: Support of the South Bend Regional Airport Application for Funding Under the Department ofvTrans^@oir 

Small Community Air Service Development Program — c o 

Dear Mr. Secretary, 

On t)ehatf of Kosciusko Economic Development Corporation (KEDCo), I am delighted to support the Small 

Conrwnunity Air Service Development Grant application submitted by ttie St. Joseph County Airport Authority for 

marketing funding to encourage a nevir canier to enter the South Bend niarket with non-stop service to Denver, 

CO. 

Air service devetopment is important for the economic health of our regkm. Businesses and residents must have 

access to the glot»l transportatton system at affordable fares. South Bend Regfonal Airporf s importance to the 

Mnhiana regkm cannot be overstated. Our quality of life is linked to the airport's growth now and in the future. 

This applk;at»n is an excellent opportunity for St. Joseph County and Mk^lana to leverage scarce resources to 

help devetop air servtoe at South Bend Airport by supporting this applicatton under the Small Community Air 

Service Development Grant program. 

We urge you to liilly fund the request from the South Bend Regtonal Airport 

Sincerely, 

Max: Courtneyy V / 

KEDCo Chairman 

121 N. Lake St. •Warsaw, Indiana 46580 • 574-265-2601 • 1-877-482-3331 •Fax 574-267-7762 

Website: www.kosciuskoedc.com
#### Thomas Bennett, Respondent, v Genesee Marina, Inc., Doing Business as Riverview Yacht Basin, et al., Appellants. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, as Subrogee of Edward Miskinis et al., Respondents, v Genesee Marina, Inc., Doing Business as Riverview Yacht Basin, et al., Appellants. Royal Insurance Company of America, as Subrogee of Central Auto Auctions, Inc., Doing Business as Central Auto Exchange, et al., Respondents, v Genesee Marina, Inc., Doing Business as Riverview Yacht Basin, et al., Appellants. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Frank Sanza, Respondent, v Genesee Marina, Inc., Doing Business as Riverview Yacht Basin, et al., Appellants.

[656 NYS2d 1013]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In these consolidated actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants are liable for the damage to their boats caused by a fire at defendants’ marina. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motions to strike defendants’ third and sixth affirmative defenses, which allege contractual release of liability, and properly denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints. We agree with defendants that the boat space rental agreement at issue constituted a license, not a lease of real property, and that General Obligations Law § 5-321 therefore is inapplicable *(see, Brown v Town of Clarence,*181 AD2d 1055, 1056). Nevertheless, we conclude that the release provision does not unequivocally state that it encompasses the liability of defendants for their own negligent acts and, thus, it is not sufficiently explicit to exculpate defendants from the consequences of their own negligence *(see,*
      *909
      *Gross v Sweet,*49 NY2d 102, 107-109). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the
period ended January 31, 2007, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
    
    The information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company.
   /s/ Robert A. VirtueRobert A. VirtuePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of theBoard (Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Robert E. DoseRobert E. DoseVice President  Finance, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Susan Mary GEBHARDT, Appellant, v. Rocco SMITH and Carl Shepard, Appellees.

No. 77-861.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1977.

Richard G. Smith and Benjamin P. Reese, II of Stinnett, Surfus & Martin, Sarasota, for appellant.

Patrick J. Murphy of Crabtree Butler, Syprett & Meshad, Sarasota, for appellee Carl Shepard.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the briefs, record, and oral arguments we hold that the trial court erred in granting appellees/defend-ants’ motion to dismiss the complaint filed *1268by appellant/plaintiff. The complaint does contain sufficient allegations to withstand attack by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).

REVERSED.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Solelyin connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of RetractableTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned Thomas J. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas W. Cowan,Chief Financial Officer, do hereby 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)      The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

Date:       August 8, 2008

 
|   |   | /s/Thomas J. Shaw                           |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |   | THOMAS J. SHAW                              |
|   |   | PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN,  AND                   |
|   |   | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     |
|   |   |                                        |
|   |   |                                        |
|   |   | /s/Douglas W. Cowan                         |
|   |   | DOUGLAS W. COWAN                            |
|   |   | VICE PRESIDENT AND  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER |
#### GREENE *v.*STATE

[No. 2,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 9, 1962.*

The cause was argued before the full Court.

*Irving S. Reamer*for the appellant.

*Gerard Wm. Wittstadt, Assistant Attorney*General, with whom were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Saul A.*
      *433
      *Harris, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City,*and *George J. Helinski, Assistant State’s Attorney,*on the brief, for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

Judge Foster, sitting without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, convicted appellant of rape and perverted practice and sentenced him generally to seven years’ confinement. The validity of the perverted practice conviction is not challenged.

Appellant urges that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the intercourse, which is admitted, was not voluntary and that the testimony of the victim to the contrary was so full of contradictions as to make it completely unreliable and of no probative value.

Assuming that it is necessary to decide whether there was error in the judgment and sentence for rape—since the sentence was a general one and within the maximum for perverted practice (cf. *Nelson v. State,*224 Md. 374)—we find no error.

As we read the record, the matter is simply one of credibility, depending on which of the witnesses the trier of fact believed. Judge Foster found the testimony of the eighteen-year-old victim that she had been forced against her will to submit in a parked automobile, to be direct and unembellished and her explanations natural and logical. He was convinced she was telling the truth by her “demeanor and the manner in which she conducted herself on the stand.” It follows that he did not find her testimony inconsistent and contradictory. There was corroboration of her claim that force was used to overpower her resistance by marks of violence on her face and blood stains on her clothing, and by some of the testimony of two witnesses for the State. It is plain to us that we cannot say that Judge Foster was clearly wrong in his findings of fact as we would have to be able to do under Md. Rule 886 (which is made applicable to appeals in criminal cases by Rule 772) before a reversal could come about.

Judgment Affirmed.
257 La. 460

#### UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY v. Howard SINGLETON et al.

No. 51071.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 1971.

In re: Howard Singleton, Beverly Jean Burris, Dewey Lee Singleton Cornay, Clement Cornay, Elizabeth Singleton Gaiennie and George Gaiennie, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Martin. 241 So.2d 93.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law.
#### ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., a foreign corporation for profit, and Chester Jupin, Appellants, v. Orien SMITH, Appellee.

No. 71-646.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT NO. 31.1



CERTIFICATION

I, Marc T. Giles, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, 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 effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to 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 controls over financial reporting.

Date:   March 15, 2004

| | /s/ Marc T. Giles                     | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| | Marc T. Giles
Chief Executive Officer |
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1



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



I, Arthur G. Ritchie, Chairman of the Board, 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, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
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:  January 28, 2004.



                                   /s/     Arthur G. Ritchie
                                           Chairman of the Board,
                                           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.