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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from unaudited
Statements of Financial Condition at September 27, 1996 and unaudited Statements
of Operations for the three-months ended September 27,1996, which are contained
in the body of the accompanying Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-27-1996
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             169,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,981)                           
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               169,406
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               206 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (93)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (113)            
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (113)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0

        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Allen E. Larson, certify that:

1.
        I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Minn Dak Farmers Cooperative;


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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;


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


a)
        designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, 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 Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.


c)
        disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and


5.
        The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors:


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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.






Date:
        November 27, 2006
        
        
        /s/  Allen E. LarsonController and Chief Accounting Officer


---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1464. WILLIE R. EDWARDS v. BILLIE EDWARDS.

In this divorce case, the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of

divorce in which it awarded primary physical custody of the parties’ children to the

wife, Billie Edwards. The husband, Willie R. Edwards, filed a motion for new trial,

which the trial court denied. He then filed this direct appeal. However, we lack

jurisdiction. 

Appeals from judgments or orders entered in domestic relations cases,

including divorce cases, must be appealed by application for discretionary review.

See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). A direct appeal is proper under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11)

from all judgments or orders “in child custody cases” that award, refuse to change,

or modify child custody, or orders that hold or decline to hold persons in contempt

of child custody orders. However, OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) allows a “direct appeal

fromthe types of ordersspecified in thatstatute that are entered in ‘custody cases’ but

not from orders relating to child custody issues that are entered in ‘divorce cases.’”

Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 45-46 (799 SE2d 160) (2017); see Hoover v. Hoover,

295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) (757 SE2d 838) (2014) (holding that when child custody issues

are ancillary to a divorce action, the determination of child custody does not

transform the case into a “child custody case” for purposes of determining the

appropriate method for appeal); Todd v. Todd, 287 Ga. 250, 251 (1) (703 SE2d 597)

(2010) (“All other issues in a divorce action, including child custody, are merely

ancillary to [the] primary issue [of whether the marriage should be dissolved].”); see

also Ford v. Ford, __ Ga. App. __ (818 SE2d 690) (Case No. A18A1156, decided

Aug. 30, 2018) (reaffirming the holdings of Hoover and Todd).

November 29, 2018
This case is part of the divorce proceeding between the parties and, therefore,

the husband was required to file an application for discretionary appeal pursuant to

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is

jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). His failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us

of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/29/2018
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-02-292-CV

EDDIE MCDANIEL	APPELLANT

	V.

PENNY NIX AND VANESSA NIX	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

We have considered the “Joint Motion To Dismiss The Appeal.”  It is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(12), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM	

PANEL BD:	WALKER, HOMALMAN, ANDnaand GARDNER, JJ.d
**EXHIBIT 20.2**

Dear Shareholders:

         This is my first report to you as President of this wonderful organization.  The past year has proven to be a year of profitable success with a great group of people.  As the Chairman and CEO has written at length on the financial results, tax policy, accounting principles and the political, legislative, regulatory and economic factors this organization has and will continue to face, I will endeavor not to go into that again here.  Instead I want to merely draw your attention to some of my observations.

        My first thought relates to the enormous talent the organization is fortunate to have.  I’ve had the opportunity to observe the executive and senior management teams move with magnificent skill, grace and ingenuity; and do so under intense time constraints.  For example, consider the acquisition of Online Brokerage Services, previously mentioned in the Chairman’s letter.  This acquisition is tied to a number of our strategic initiatives such as securing our conduit for unique investment opportunities as well as providing additional non-interest income revenue potential.  The flexibility and creativity in structuring this deal can only be attributed to the high caliber of our executive team and the talent whom they support.

        This year we also overhauled our Online Banking platform in order to expand the experience and functionality of this channel. We are now able to provide an experience for the customer which is more akin to the personal service that is expected of us in the branches.  This enormous task touched approximately 40,000 online customers.  We learned much from this experience, and as you may know, aspects of the conversion did not go as smoothly as we intended.  Nonetheless, the scope and scale to which our people rose up and met the customer and technical challenges upon “going live” was simply amazing.  With a different culture, repercussions would have been much different.  We made lemonade as is demonstrated by the fact that our customer attrition numbers were in fact better than last year.  We took the time to communicate with our customers on an individual basis.  Customers do not expect the CEO, President, Executive Vice Presidents and Senior Vice Presidents of the organization to call them up and assist them with their online experience; we did just that, and our customers told us that is why they choose to do business with us!

        In light of key retirements, we were faced with filling some large shoes in 2011.  Nonetheless, we have made some adjustments in our management structure which appears to be a great success. Due to the significant depth of bench, as well as CNC’s cache within the community, we were able to fill those gaps with high-quality individuals both from within the organization and the greater community.  It should be noted that our competitors graciously assisted us this year by demonstrating their lack of vision and loyalty by pulling out of the
/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 23, 2015

No. 04-14-00785-CV

Mary Ann CASTRO,

Appellant

v.

Manuel CASTRO,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-15957

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT. We have previously issued an order stating 

appellant is deemed indigent because the trial court failed to render a ruling on the contest within 

the time restraints of Rule 20.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(4).

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of February, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998 for May Limited  Partnership  1984-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000757385
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1984-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         162
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  91
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               209
<PP&E>                                         92
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          91
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   91
<SALES>                                        574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               586
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  73
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                451
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            451
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  35.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  35.10
        


</TABLE>
#### Irving A. GOLDMAN, Petitioner, v. Martin L. TABOR, Respondent.

No. 70-145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 25, 1970.

Ramseur, Bradham, Lyle, Skipper & Cra-mer, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

John N. Samaha of Fowler, White, Gil-len, Humkey & Kinney, St. Petersburg, for respondent.

LILES, Judge.

Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of common law certiorari, asking this court to review a pre-trial conference order issued by Judge Robert A. Freeze. William Duane Wood III, counsel for the petitioner, failed to appear at a pre-trial conference held by Judge Freeze. As a result of Wood’s failure to attend, Judge Freeze dismissed, sua sponte, all pleadings of defendant and entered default judgment and set the case for trial on damages only.

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion asking the court to vacate and set aside its pre-trial order wherein all pleadings were stricken and a default judgment entered against petitioner, which motion was never set for hearing by Judge Freeze. Petitioner asks this court to hold that Judge Freeze erred in striking defendant’s pleadings and entering default judgment on the question of liability.

This court held in Bader Bros. Van Lines, Inc. v. Jay, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 867, that such action as was taken here punishes the litigant rather than the attorney. This would certainly be the result in the instant case. The reason given by petitioner’s attorney for his failure to attend the pre-trial conference was that he failed to receive notice. This was not refuted by respondent, and to allow the order to stand would be a severe punishment to the litigant, but would in no way affect his attorney.

For this reason the petition is hereby granted and the order striking defendant’s pleadings and granting a default judgment is hereby quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
#### Dan NESMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1025.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 5, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Roy S. Wood, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Green v. State, 134 Fla. 216, 183 So. 728; Steele v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 386; Kish v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 639; Tarpley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 301; Meeks v. State, Fla.App.1974, 289 So.2d 479.
#### FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Hotel Fontainebleau, Appellant, v. TRIANGLE INDUSTRIES, a California corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-69.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### HANEY CHEVROLET, INC., Appellant, v. POLI BROS., INC., Appellee.

No. 71-357.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1972.

*231William M. Rowland, Jr., of Rowland & Petruska, Orlando, for appellant.

Linton S. Waterhouse, of Waterhouse & Shuman, Orlando, for appellee.

MAGER, Judge.

We are of the opinion that the record supports the trial court’s findings of fact that appellee’s lien was timely filed. Additionally we are of the view that the trial court was not in error in its determination as to the reasonable value of appel-lee’s lien for labor and services furnished appellant.

In estimating the reasonable value of work and labor actually furnished (where the contract has been terminated without fault of the materialman or contractor) such factors as the actual cost of work done and materials supplied, including the overhead and profit, wages paid to employees performing the labor supervision and rentals of equipment furnished in the improvement, may be considered. 53 Am. Jur.2d Mechanics’ Liens §§ 103-107, 245; see also Rebisso, Inc. v. Frick, 1953, 159 Ohio St. 449, 112 N.E.2d 651; cf. Surf Properties v. Markowitz Bros., Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 298. Such items, as *separate*items, are nonlienable but become lienable when they are included in a contract price or reflected in the reasonable value of labor or materials furnished.

The trial court was not in error in considering the foregoing factors in determining the reasonable value of labor performed or materials furnished.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
#### PAULA DRIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and Aetna Casualty Surety Co., Appellants, v. HOUDAILLE-DUVAL-WRIGHT CO., Appellee.

No. 72-856.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 20, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,566
<INVENTORY>                                      3,062
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,751
<PP&E>                                          76,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,832
<BONDS>                                         21,822
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,211
<SALES>                                         23,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,267
<CGS>                                           17,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   630
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,894)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
ms
aii “i |

os

=

a=

| ola ae
7

2.

re SEMe eas

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
NA.ME OF INCORPORATED fl.A.CE .......

# -··-f.!1"~~4·&.r~V 

# ..**~\.·,,·,.~_.,-·,,.i,.u..u.Jr** ENUMlRATED DY ME ON TltE •..**/.1-~./~** 

## ...... DAY OF --- •• 1920. JUTIHTJ' A.!l"D JIOT•H TO!l"a['L

.......... ..u. .. -, ........ _ ......**_.:.:..·:-.':"iu:t~==** 

# ..**-~c;.~-.....-.-** 11 .. , ...... _. •• 1.,.., •• , .......... .....

### I~~~-

- 

# .. - -.---- 

# -.--.-. --- - 

# ·--.-. - 

# ,,.
-79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

 38.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

 40.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL

■ ★

■

■

★

■ ■ ■

■

★

●

●

★

●

●

●

●
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Birner Dental Management Services,
Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his
knowledge:


1.       The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.

                          Date: May 12, 2005.


                            By: /s/ Frederic W.J. Birner
                                --------------------------------------------
                          Name: Frederic W.J. Birner
                         Title: Chief Executive Officer


                            By: /s/ Dennis N. Genty
                                ------------------------------------------
                          Name: Dennis N. Genty
                         Title: Chief Financial Officer