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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                             105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   716343
<ALLOWANCES>                                     26793
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                            5071
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  710106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         311000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      122783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    710106
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                129465
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    80089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  7520
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               40649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  49376
<INCOME-TAX>                                     17800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   1452
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     30124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Joe T. PATTERSON, Attorney General of Mississippi, For the Use and Benefit of the State Forestry Commission v. L. M. JACOBS, d/b/a Jacobs Aircraft Company.

No. 44747.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 12, 1968.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., Martin Mc-Lendon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellant.

Daniel, Coker & Horton, Watkins, Pyle, Edwards & Ludlam, Jackson, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice:

The basic issues in this case are decided in accordance with the opinion rendered in Milner Enterprises, Inc. v. Jacobs, Miss., 207 So.2d 85, which opinion is being handed down concurrently with this opinion.

There is but one additional issue for determination in this cause, and conceding pro arguendo but not deciding that the contract theory would have been available to the appellant, nevertheless we hold that the evidence is insufficient to establish a contractual obligation on the part of the appellee.

For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON and SMITH, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                   ROTO-ROOTER, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                      Computation of Per Share Earnings (a)
                     (in thousands except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Year Ended December 31,
                                              -----------------------------
Computation of Earnings per Common and         1993        1994       1995
       Common Equivalent Share:               ------      ------     ------
<S>                                           <C>         <C>        <C>
Reported Income before Minority Interest      $8,387      $9,015     $9,763

Minority Interest                                414         244         86
                                              ------      ------     ------

Net Income                                    $7,973      $8,771     $9,677
                                              ======      ======     ======
  
Average Number of Shares Used to
  Compute Earnings Per Common Share            5,027       5,066      5,101

Effect of Unexercised Stock Options               59          48         52
                                              ------      ------     ------

Average Number of Shares Used to Compute
  Earnings Per Common and Common
  Equivalent Share                             5,086       5,114      5,153
                                              ======      ======     ======

Earnings Per Common and Common
  Equivalent Share                            $ 1.57      $ 1.72     $ 1.88
                                              ======      ======     ======

Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
       Assuming Full Dilution:

Reported Income before Minority Interest      $8,387      $9,015     $9,763

Minority Interest                                414         244         86
                                              ------      ------     ------

Net Income                                    $7,973      $8,771     $9,677
                                              ======      ======     ======

Average Number of Shares Used to
  Compute Earnings Per Common Share            5,027       5,066      5,101

Effect of Unexercised Stock Options               99          48         80
                                              ------      ------     ------

Average Number of Shares Used to Compute
  Earnings Per Common Share Assuming
  Full Dilution                                5,126        5,114     5,181
                                              ======      ======     ======

Earnings Per Common Share Assuming
  Full Dilution                               $ 1.56       $ 1.72    $ 1.87
                                              ======      ======     ======
</TABLE>

(a)   This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K, Item
      601(b)(11), although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB
      Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3% including
      fractional cents per share.
Exhibit 32.1




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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, M. Ray (Hoppy) Cole, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Section 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 the Company.





/s/ M. Ray (Hoppy) Cole, Jr.Name: M. Ray (Hoppy) Cole, Jr.Title: Chief Executive OfficerDate: 5-16-11





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 written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### State of Missouri, Respondent, *vs.*Carroll Brannon and W. M. Pitts, Appellants.

1. *Practice,*criminal— *Verdict set aside*— Prisoner *held over*— Final *judgment.*—The action of the court in setting aside the verdict of the jury in a criminal proceeding, where the prisoner is held for another trial, is not afinal judgment from which appeal will lie.

*Appeal from Henry Circuit Court.*

*Wilson, Smith*<§* *Johnson,*for Appellants.

I. The motion to discharge the defendant made in the Circuit Court, and overruled, was such a final judgment as could be brought here by appeal or writ of error. (State vs. New-kirk, 49 Mo;, 472, and cases there cited.)

*H. Clay Ewing, Attorney General,*for Eespondent.

I. There is no final judgment in this ease, from which an appeal will lie.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.’

In this case it is obvious there is no final judgment in the court below to support the appeal.

The indictment was found against the defendants for robbery in the first degree, and on a trial they were convicted by the jury of robbery in the second degree.

The jury were then discharged, and the court set aside the verdict, and held the prisoners for another trial. 'The defendants then filed their motion, praying the court to discharge them from custody on .the ground that they had been acquitted of the charge'of robbery in the first degree, the crime for which they were indicted.’ This motion was overruled, and the defendants appealed.

This action of the court was not a final judgment, and did not dispose of the case. It left the prisoners in the custody of the court, subject to its jurisdiction, to be further proceeded with.

In the case of the State vs. Newkirk, (49 Mo., 472,) it was held, that the discharge of a prisoner by the court was a final judgment, and an appeal or writ of error would lie therefrom. *245But a discharge puts a final end to the proceedings. It sends the prisoner out of court, and leaves nothing for future action.

In the present case, the prisoners are still held in custody, and the case is still pending against them in court.

The court should not have received the verdict, it was not responsive to the indictment, and the jury should have been informed of that fact, with instructions as to their duty. But the case is not now before’ us.

The validity of the defendants’ detention may be tested on a writ of *habeas corpus,*or if further proceedings are had and a final judgment taken, the question may be examined here on appeal.

The appeal must be dismissed.

All the Judges concur.
#### Roy CONRAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-4.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 13, 1971.

*574Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Vera Winter Lee, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Schnautz v. Beto, 5 Cir., 416 F.2d 214, 215, holding that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 is not binding upon the states as a matter of federal constitutional due process.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Archie Calvin GUSS.

No. 62923.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 29, 1978.

In re: Archie Calvin Guss, applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.
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 on Form 10-QSB, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dee Dee Lowery, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Section 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 the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Dee Dee LoweryName:

Dee Dee LoweryTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
OfficerDate:

11-10-06


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 written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### FLORIDA BOARD OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, Appellant, v. William Edwin CONNERY, Appellee.

No. N-308.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 25, 1971.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., T. T. Turn-bull, Michael Schwartz and Robert W. Olive, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Parker, Foster & Madigan, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the brief and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the orders of the lower court appealed from herein are affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and VANN, HAROLD R„ Associate Judge, concur.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Dana C. Russell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Novell, Inc;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: December 21, 2007   /s/ Dana C. Russell   Dana C. Russell
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Rev. John W. JACKSON v. SECOND PARISH COURT FOR the PARISH OF JEFFERSON.

No. 62803.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Rev. John W. Jackson, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Jefferson.

*799Writ granted in part. It is ordered that relator’s trial be commenced within 60 days or alternatively that the detainer be dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1447 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1447

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights settlement in 
            the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``New Mexico Navajo Water Settlement 
Technical Corrections Act''.

SEC. 2. NAVAJO WATER SETTLEMENT.

    (a) Definitions.--Section 10302 of the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 407 note; Public Law 111-11) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Arrellano'' and 
        inserting ``Arellano''; and
            (2) in paragraph (27), by striking ``75-185'' and inserting 
        ``75-184''.
    (b) Delivery and Use of Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Water.--
Section 10603(c)(2)(A) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1385) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``Article III(c)'' and 
        inserting ``Articles III(c)''; and
            (2) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ``Article III(c)'' and 
        inserting ``Articles III(c)''.
    (c) Project Contracts.--Section 10604(f)(1) of the Omnibus Public 
Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1391) is 
amended by inserting ``Project'' before ``water''.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10609 of the Omnibus 
Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1395) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), by 
        striking ``construction or rehabilitation'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``planning, design, construction, 
        rehabilitation,'';
            (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``2 percent'' and 
        inserting ``4 percent''; and
            (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``4 percent'' and 
        inserting ``2 percent''.
    (e) Agreement.--Section 10701(e) of the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1400) is amended 
in paragraphs (2)(A), (2)(B), and (3)(A) by striking ``and Contract'' 
each place it appears.

            Passed the Senate December 4, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1447

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights settlement in 
            the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes.
```
g 

4 

:s 

6 

7 

8 

9 

.,, 

II 

19 

13 

14 

Ui 

16 

17 

18 

19 

90 

~H 

!19 

_513 

94 

-~ 

ge 

-97 

gg 

ao 

n 

38 

34 

aG 

16 

l'f 

as 

89 

-- 40 

of %d:fitu{r; enumerated by me, on the f day of fd!!h 1880. ,£;11Ji///M?tf/ 

PoSt Office -f MlttHv 

9 

25lJJ 

m& 

Ths name or every person who .. usual 

pfaco of abode on lhe first day or Jnpo, 

1860, WU in this r.mily. 

3 

D.ucB.ll'11oN. 

Profession, Occupation, or Trade of 

each person, male and female, over 

15 yean ohge. 

7 

V um: or Eauu OWl<ID. 

Value of Value of ~ Eetate. Pen!onal 

Eet&te. 

8 9 

PlAcoof Birth, 

Naming lho State, Tenitory, 

or Country. 

10 

No.~·-·-.. 

II d 19
#### Steven X. WASHINGTON, Jr. v. THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

No. 38592.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
NUMBER 13-21-00340-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

STETSON KETCHERSID, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 424th District Court

of Burnet County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Tijerina, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant attempted to perfect an appeal from convictions of three counts of 

aggravated sexual assault of a child.

1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket 

equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

Sentence in this matter was imposed with a judgment of conviction on July 29, 

2021. On September 10, 2021 and September 24, 2021, notices of appeal were filed. 

On October 12, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appeared the appeal 

was not timely perfected. Appellant was advised the appeal would be dismissed if the 

defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice. 

This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed 

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a 

timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the 

merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1998). Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ 

of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the 

availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1999).

Therefore, this matter is reinstated, and the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. 

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

24th day of February, 2022.
EXHIBIT 21.1

EXAR CORPORATION

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|1. | Exar Japan Corporation (a Japan corporation).
|-- | ---------------------------------------------



|2. | Micro Power Systems, Inc. (a California corporation).
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------



|3. | Exar Ltd. (a United Kingdom Limited Liability corporation).
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Exar SARL (a French Limited Liability corporation).
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------



|5. | Exar (Delaware) Corporation Shanghai Representative Office.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|6. | Exar Srl (an Italian corporation).
|-- | ----------------------------------