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
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
DATED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       7,080,971
<SECURITIES>                                15,977,369
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,173,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                   117,772
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,286,977
<PP&E>                                       1,424,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,892,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,989,356
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        95,994
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,806,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,892,051
<SALES>                                      2,744,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,744,524
<CGS>                                        1,658,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,832,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (63,832)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (63,832)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (10,055,639)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,119,471)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### Arthur JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-292.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15673]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  83 FR 32932, 16 
July 2018.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:  Wednesday, July 18, 
2018 at 10:00 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The following item will not be considered 
during the Open Meeting on Wednesday, July 18, 2018:
    <bullet> Whether to propose amendments to the disclosure 
requirements in Rule 3-10 and Rule 3-16 of Regulation S-X.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: July 18, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15673 Filed 7-18-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Entremetrix Corporation (the "Company")on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George LeFevre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)       Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Dated: April 17, 2007 |  /s/ George LeFevre     |
|-----------------------|------------------------------|
|                  | By: George LeFevre           |
|                  | Its: Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Entremetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntremetrixCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 107 

To prohibit the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States 

until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

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

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To prohibit the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in 

the United States until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTIONS IN CHINA, 

4 INDIA, AND RUSSIA. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Ad6 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or 

7 the head of any other Federal agency shall not regulate 

8 carbon dioxide emissions until the date on which the Sec9 retary of Commerce certifies in writing that each of the 

10 People’s Republic of China, the Republic of India, and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 107 IS

1 Russia have initiated measures that require carbon dioxide 

2 emission reductions that are substantially similar to the 

3 carbon dioxide emission reductions proposed for the 

4 United States. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-12313, 333-62959, 333-88803,
333-40644, 333-50138, 333-76074 and 333-111066 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 14, 2005, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Brooktrout, Inc. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Brooktrout, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
March 14, 2005

---



QuickLinks
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1566

LATASHA BOYD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 7:19

- cv
- 00376

- BHH )

Submitted : July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Latasha Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Latasha Boyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her
civil complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (2012)

. * The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that
the complaint be dismissed and advised Boyd that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate j udge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Boyd has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* Because “the grounds of the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the defects in [Boyd’s] case, ” the district court’s order in final and appealable. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6843

KEVIN ANTHONY DUDLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee, and BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (2:07-cv-00022-JFA) Submitted: August 8, 2007 Decided: August 21, 2007 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Anthony Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Yolanda Howard, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kevin Anthony Dudley, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2007) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dudley v. Hamidullah , No. 2:07-cv00022-JFA (D.S.C. May 24, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 127 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 127

  To provide a permanent deduction for State and local general sales 
                                 taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 24 (legislative day, January 3), 2013

 Mr. Heller (for himself and Mr. Enzi) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide a permanent deduction for State and local general sales 
                                 taxes.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL GENERAL 
              SALES TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 205 of the 
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, is amended by striking ``, and 
before January 1, 2014''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
----------------------------
To the Stockholders and Board of Directors
of Miltope Group Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets
of Miltope Group Inc. and subsidiaries (a majority-owned
subsidiary of Great Universal Incorporated) as of
December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations,stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2000.
Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement
schedule listed in the index at Item 8. These financial statements
and the financial statement schedule are the responsibility
of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements and the
financial statement schedule based on our audits.  The
consolidated financial statements give retroactive effect to
the transfer of IV Phoenix Group, Inc. (PGI) from Great
Universal Incorporated, which has been accounted for on an
"as if pooled" basis as described in Note 2 to the
consolidated financial statements.  We did not audit the
balance sheet of PGI as of December 31, 1999, or the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
of PGI for the year then ended, which statements reflect total
assets of $798,000 as of December 31, 1999, and total revenues of
$9,045,000 for the year ended December 31, 1999.  Those
statements were audited by other auditors whose report has
been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates
to the amounts included for PGI for 1999, is based solely on
the report of such other auditors.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation.  We believe that our audits and the
report of the other auditors provide a reasonable basis for
our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of the
other auditors, the consolidated financial statements
referred to above present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of Miltope Group Inc. and
subsidiaries at December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the results
of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2000 in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America.  Also, in our opinion, such
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to
the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information
set forth therein.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
Birmingham, Alabama
February 9, 2001 (April xx, 2001 as to the waiver
letter described in Note 5)
H. Res. 710 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

August 1, 2014. 

Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 5230) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, 

pursuant to House Resolution 696: 

(a) the amendments printed in part A of the report of 

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall 

be considered as adopted; 

(b) all points of order against provisions in the bill, as 

amended, are waived; and 

(c) the previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except (1) 

one additional hour of debate equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Appropriations and (2) one motion to recommit with or 

without instructions. 

SEC. 2. After passage of H.R. 5230, and on the legislative day of August 1, 2014, the House shall consider in the 
2 

•HRES 710 EH 

House the bill (H.R. 5272) to prohibit certain actions with 

respect to deferred action for aliens not lawfully present in 

the United States, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 

printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 

Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 

instructions. 

SEC. 3. Section 2 of House Resolution 700 is amended 

to read as follows: ‘‘Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time 

on the legislative day of August 1, 2014, for the Speaker to 

entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as 

though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure addressing missile defense of Israel.’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                                                                      THREE MONTHS
                                       YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED        ENDED
                                       DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,     MARCH 31,
                                          1997           1998(1)           1999           2000            2001            2002
                                      ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                   <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Earnings:
  Net loss ........................   $    (43,887)   $    (59,316)   $    (99,867)   $   (117,801)   $   (107,903)   $     (9,352)
  Add:  Amount of
     previously capitalized
     interest amortized ...........             --             252           2,288           2,288           2,288             572
  Add: Fixed charges ..............         38,499          43,798          65,310          65,649          35,076           2,686
                                      ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
  Adjusted earnings ...............         (5,388)        (15,266)        (32,269)        (49,864)        (70,539)         (6,094)

Fixed charges:
  Interest in
     indebtedness .................         36,672          52,645          63,452          63,418          32,316           2,125
  Amortization of debt
     issuance costs ...............            844           1,172           1,291           1,992           1,317             237
  Interest portion
     of rental and
     lease expense ................            983           1,428             567             239           1,443             324
                                      ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
  Fixed charges ...................         38,499          55,245          65,310          65,649          35,076           2,686

Deficiency of
  earnings available to
  cover fixed charges .............   $    (43,887)   $    (70,511)   $    (97,579)   $   (115,513)   $   (105,615)   $     (8,780)
                                      ============    ============    ============    ============    ============    ============

Earnings to fixed charges ratio ...             --              --              --              --              --              --
</Table>


----------
(1) The fixed charge adjustment to earnings excludes $11.4 million of
capitalized interest.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.
   /s/ Dr. Lionel L. ReillyDr. Lionel L. Reilly, President andChief Executive Officer
 /s/ Neal B. SoderquistNeal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 78 

Expressing support for designation of July as National Sarcoma Awareness 

Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2013 

Ms. CASTOR of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of July as National 

Sarcoma Awareness Month. 

Whereas sarcoma is a cancer of connective tissues, such as 

nerves, muscles, joints, fat, bones, and blood vessels, and 

it can arise anywhere in the body; 

Whereas more than 13,000 people in the United States were 

diagnosed with sarcoma last year, more than 5,000 died, 

and 50,000 are struggling with the disease at any one 

time; 

Whereas 1 percent of the cancers diagnosed in adults and 15 

percent of cancers diagnosed in children each year are 

sarcoma; 

Whereas more than 50 subtypes of sarcomas have been identified; 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 78 IH 

Whereas the National Cancer Institute recognizes that sarcoma is often misdiagnosed and underreported; and 

Whereas July would be an appropriate month to designate as 

National Sarcoma Awareness Month to raise awareness 

of the disease and encourage more individuals to get 

properly diagnosed and treated: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of National Sarcoma Awareness Month. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### James Rainer MORROW, Petitioner, v. Malcolm BEARD, Sheriff, Hillsborough County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-319.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 27, 1972.

Habeas corpus denied.
# C_2022037EN.01003301.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/33

---

Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 26 November 2021 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament

(Case T-272/21 R II)

(Interim measures - Institutional law - Member of Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2022/C 37/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo), Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye, J. Costa i Rosselló and S. Bekaert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and J.-C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of decisions P9_TA(2021)0059, P9_TA(2021)0060 and P9_TA(2021)0061 of the Parliament of 9 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the applicants’ immunity.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---