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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000947969
<NAME>                        MANGOSOFT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,295
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,480
<PP&E>                                           2,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,898
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,785
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,138)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,667
<SALES>                                              4
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   245
<CGS>                                               92
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,262)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,262)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,262)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (89.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (89.95)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7749

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD LEVETTE GORDON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-99-24; CA-01-337) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: March 31, 2004 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Levette Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Reginald Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gordon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 14
- 00046
- CR

William Lee Ockletree, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, NO. 71320, THE HONOR ABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for

pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with
thi s Court. Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to providewritten verification to this Court of the date and manner in which th e appellate record was

provided, on or before December 29, 2014

. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on December 16, 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field.
Do Not Publish
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

AMERICAN SURETY CO.

(AGENT ANTONIO MUNOZ, JR.,

D/B/A BORDERLAND BAIL BONDS )

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00260

- CV

Appeal from

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2015DBF0007)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion filed by the parties to vacate the trial court’s

final order on judgment nisi and render judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement

agreement. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1 (a)(2)(A)

. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we vacate the

final order on judgment nisi entered by the trial court on June 25, 2015, and we render judgment

against Appellant, American Surety Co. (Agent Antonio Munoz, Jr., d/b/a Borderland Bail

Bonds) in the total amount of $522.79, which includes court costs in the amount of $365.00,

interest on the bond in the amount of $35.07, attorney’s fees in the amount of $114.38, and staff

time in the amount of $8.34.

September 23, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


OF
      BNL
      FINANCIAL CORPORATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350





In
      connection with the accompanying report on Form 10K for the period ending
      December 31, 2006 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry N. Shamas, Chief Financial Officer of
      BNL
      Financial Corporation, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








_______________________





Barry
      N.
      Shamas


Chief
      Financial Officer


**March
      30, 2007**
#### Trapnall vs. Wassell.

Tlie opinion delivered in *Watkins et al. vs. Wassell,*20 *Ark.*410, adhered to.

*Error to Pulaski Circuit Court.*

*273Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Hempstead, for the plaintiff.

Garland & Randolph, for the defendant.

Mr. Justice Compton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Wassell against Mrs. Trapnall, for money had and received — being money received by her, arising from the rent of certain premises, situate in the city of Little Rock. The judgment in the court below was for Wassell, to reverse which Mrs. Trapnall prosecutes this writ of error.

It was decided by this court, in *Watkins et al. vs. Wassell,*20 *Ark.*410, that Wassell was not entitled to the rents for the receipt of which by Mrs. Trapnall, she is sought to be held liable in this action. See *the opinion in that case at page*417, *et seq., for the law and facts in this.*

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 11

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                              December 31,
                                                        -----------------------
                                                           1998          1997
                                                        ----------    ---------

Net Income ..........................................   $  487,223      458,790
                                                        ==========    =========
Weighted average shares outstanding .................    2,851,654    3,111,387

Reduction for common shares not yet
  released by Employee Stock Ownership Plan .........     (233,920)    (255,080)
                                                        ----------    ---------
Total weighted average common shares
  outstanding for basic computation .................    2,617,734    2,856,307
                                                        ==========    =========
Basic earnings per share ............................   $      .19          .16
                                                        ==========    =========
Total weighted average common shares
  outstanding for basic computation .................    2,617,734    2,856,307

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
  effect of stock options ...........................       69,215      122,648
                                                        ----------    ---------
Total weighted average common shares and
  equivalents outstanding for diluted computation ...    2,686,949    2,978,955
                                                        ==========    =========
Diluted earnings per share ..........................   $      .18          .15
                                                        ==========    =========



                                      -19-
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 20 2
, A 1 5 A1 2 0 3

. VI REN R. PATEL v

. ATLANTA PUBLI C SCHOOLS.

Vi ren R. P a t el fi l ed t h es e d i rect ap p eal s fro m t wo t ri al co u rt o rd ers i n a

g a r n i sh m en t act i o n

. 1 Ho wev er, ap p eal s in cas es i n v o l v i ng g arn i s hm en t m u s t b e

i n i t i at ed b y d i s cret io nary ap p l icat i o n fi l ed wi t h t h i s Co u rt

. OCGA § 5

- 6

- 3 5 (a) (4 )

an d (b ); Ma l o

y v. Ewi n g , 2 26 Ga. Ap p

. 4 9 0 (4 8 6 SE2 d 7 08 ) (1 9 9 7 ). Pat el ’ s fai l u re

t o fo l l o w t h e req u ired p ro ced u re d ep ri ves th i s Co u rt o f ju ri s d ict i on , an d t h es e ap p eal s

are acco rd i n gl y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 In t h e reco rd t h at was t ran s m i t t ed fro m t he t ri al co u rt t o t h i s Co u rt

, t h e t ri al

c o u r t i s v ari o us l y i d en t i fi ed as b o t h th e St at e Co u rt of Fu lt o n Co u n t y an d t h e M ag i s t rat e C o u r t of Fu l t on Co u n t y , i ncl u d in g o n fo rm s an d o rd ers th at were
g en erat ed b y th e co u rt i t s el f. T h i s Co u rt ’ s Dep u ty Cl erk co n t act ed t h e t ri al co u rt

, an d

co n fi rm ed t h at t h e cas e o ri g i n at ed i n t h e St at e Co u rt

. 03/24/2015 March 24, 2015
#### STATE of Louisiana in the interest of Leander JONES.

No. 62048.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Leander Jones applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Ascension. 357 So.2d 636.

Writ granted. Judgment of Court of Appeal is reversed and case is remanded to Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of *State v. Dino,*La., 359 So.2d 586.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING

LITIGATION,

DEBORAH JANE JARRETT; NANCY

ISENHOWER; JEFFREY H. FRANKEL;

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY; LINDA K. RYBKOSKI,

 Plaintiffs,

 and

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

INTERMUNE INC.; W. SCOTT

HARKONEN; GENENTECH INC.,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

CONNETICS CORPORATION;

No. 10-17237

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02376-MHP

MEMORANDUM*

FILED

DEC 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,

 Defendants.

In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING

LITIGATION,

DEBORAH JANE JARRETT; NANCY

ISENHOWER; LINDA K. RYBKOSKI,

MARL PERLMUTTER; LISA

PERLMUTTER, Trustees of the Joan M.

Stevens Trust,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 and

JEFFREY H. FRANKEL; ZURICH

AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY;

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

INTERMUNE INC.; W. SCOTT

HARKONEN; GENENTECH INC.,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

CONNETICS CORPORATION;

EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,

No. 10-17239

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02376-MHP
The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District **

Court for Hawaii, sitting by designation.

 Defendants.,

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 29, 2011

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.** 

Deborah Jane Jarrett et. al., along with third-party payor Government

Employees Health Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their

proposed nationwide class action suit against InterMune, Inc., Dr. Scott Harkonen,

and Genentech, Inc. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case,

we need not recount it here. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in the

district court’s orders. See In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., 614 F.Supp.2d 1037

(N.D. Cal. 2009) (Actimmune I); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., No. C

08-02376 MHP, 2009 WL 3740648 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009) (Patel, J.)

(Actimmune II ); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2010

WL 3463491 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) (Patel, J.) (Actimmune III).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<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>                                                     3,750
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             10,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                               1,048
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          14,617
<PP&E>                                                    13,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                            12,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            18,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     19,772
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                  72,243
<OTHER-SE>                                               (75,473)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              18,667
<SALES>                                                    2,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          11,908
<CGS>                                                        437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              7,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           3,603
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              242
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          242
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 242
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.01



</TABLE>
#### TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., Petitioner, v. Joseph CABELLA and Barbara Cabella, Respondents.

No. 41327.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 248 So.2d 539.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Burnis N. McINNIS et ux.

No. 62776.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Vernon. 360 So.2d 887.

Denied.
##### 



Novell
    
    November 7, 2005Personal and ConfidentialDr. Jeffrey M. Jaffe
2 Crabapple Court
Monsey, New York 10952Dear Jeff,On behalf of Novell, Inc. (Novell), I am pleased to offer you the position
of Executive Vice President of Worldwide Product Business Units and
Technology. In this position, you will be reporting directly to Ron
Hovsepian, President and Chief Operating Officer of Novell, and your
responsibilities will be those commonly associated with the position of
Executive Vice President of Worldwide Product Business Units and Technology.
Your expected start date with Novell will be mutually agreed to between you
and Ron Hovsepian, but in no event will it be later than December 12, 2005.
This appointment is subject to approval by Novells Board of Directors
pursuant to Novells Statement on Corporate Governance.Your base salary will be no less then $18,750 per bi-monthly pay period
(less applicable tax withholding), which is $450,000 annualized (less
applicable tax withholding). In addition to your base salary, starting on
your employment commencement date, you will be eligible to participate in
Novells discretionary Annual Bonus Program. Your bonus will be based on
the attainment of certain performance goals, which may be determined based
on your individual performance, the performance of your group and/or
Novells performance. These goals will be established by Novell, and your
annualized target bonus will represent a percentage of your annual base
salary. If all of the performance goals designated for you are met at
target your bonus will be 100% of your base salary. During the first year
of your participation in Novells discretionary Annual Bonus Program your
bonus will not be less than 50% of your base salary.You will also receive a one-time sign-on bonus equal to $300,000 (less
applicable tax withholding). This sign-on bonus will be paid to you in a
lump sum cash payment on the next reasonable pay period that follows
commencement of your employment with Novell. Additionally, in the event
that you are not terminated for cause or you do not resign from your
position with Novell within the first year of your employment commencement
date, you will receive a lump sum cash payment equal to $600,000 (less
applicable tax withholding.) This amount will be paid to you on the next
reasonable pay period that follows the first anniversary of your employment
commencement date.Subject to the approval of Novells Compensation Committee, after
commencement of your employment with Novell, you will be granted a
non-qualified stock option to purchase 100,000 shares of Novell common stock
under one of Novells equity compensation plans. This option will vest 25%
per annum as long as you are employed by Novell on the applicable vesting
date. In




---



##### 








---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Exhibit
B




---



##### 



Exhibit A Exhibit
B
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



                  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Day International
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Thomas J. Koenig, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 position and results of operations of
the Company.

                  A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ Thomas J. Koenig
------------------------------
Thomas J. Koenig
Chief Financial Officer
August 11, 2003
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-109345, 333-109346, 33-14531, 33-54483, 33-64998, 33-65440, 33-68336, 333-04775,333-04823, 333-62087, 333-62103, 333-95409, 333-41328, 333-71502 and 333-97713) of Novell, Inc. ofour report dated December 21, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statementschedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in thisForm 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP