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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,249
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,421
<PP&E>                                          13,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 158,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,821
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           898
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   158,404
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,423
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,765)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,248)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,517)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
#### Leonard CREECH, joined by his wife, Ruby Creech, Appellants, v. Charles M. HORLEY et ux., Appellees.

No. 72-306.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              9
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000

<S>                                      <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
 <PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
 <CASH>                                          8,829
 <INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            669
 <FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
 <TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
 <INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    46,626
 <INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         14,838
 <INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           14,697
 <LOANS>                                       167,263
 <ALLOWANCE>                                     2,082
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                242,683
 <DEPOSITS>                                    197,393
 <SHORT-TERM>                                   18,415
 <LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,672
 <LONG-TERM>                                     4,230
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
 <PREFERRED>                                         0
 <COMMON>                                        1,805
 <OTHER-SE>                                     19,168
 <TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                242,683
 <INTEREST-LOAN>                                 6,659
 <INTEREST-INVEST>                               1,743
 <INTEREST-OTHER>                                   58
 <INTEREST-TOTAL>                                8,460
 <INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              3,749
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,143
 <INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           4,317
 <LOAN-LOSSES>                                     150
 <SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
 <EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 2,891
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,999
 <INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      1,999
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
 <CHANGES>                                           0
 <NET-INCOME>                                    1,357
 <EPS-BASIC>                                    1.54
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.54
 <YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.26
 <LOANS-NON>                                     1,173
 <LOANS-PAST>                                        0
 <LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
 <LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 2,123
 <ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                1,947
 <CHARGE-OFFS>                                      84
 <RECOVERIES>                                       69
 <ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               2,082
 <ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            2,082
 <ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
 <ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NET LOSS PER SHARE
Net loss per share is calculated as follows:
(in thousands, except per share data)                       THREE MONTHS ENDED                     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 JUNE 30,                              JUNE 30,
                                                     ----------------------------------    ----------------------------------
                                                          2001              2000                2001              2000
                                                     ----------------  ----------------    ----------------  ----------------
<S>                                                  <C>                                   <C>
Net loss                                              $      (3,476)    $      (2,763)      $      (3,941)    $      (5,226)
                                                     ================  ================    ================  ================

BASIC:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding               10,511            10,177              10,497            10,142
                                                     ================  ================    ================  ================

    Net loss per common share                         $       (0.33)    $       (0.27)      $       (0.38)    $       (0.52)
                                                     ================  ================    ================  ================

DILUTED:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding               10,511            10,177              10,497            10,142
    Effect of dilutive securities:
        Convertible notes                                         -                 -                   -                 -
        Stock options                                             -                 -                   -                 -
        Warrants                                                  -                 -                   -                 -
                                                     ----------------  ----------------    ----------------  ----------------
    Weighted average common and common
        equivalent shares outstanding                        10,511            10,177              10,497            10,142
                                                     ================  ================    ================  ================

    Net loss per common and common
        equivalent share                              $       (0.33)    $       (0.27)      $       (0.38)    $       (0.52)
                                                     ================  ================    ================  ================

</TABLE>
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 of Coates International, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”), I, George J. Coates, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, the Company’s Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: August 13, 2010
By:
/s/ George J. CoatesGeorge J. CoatesPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Principal Executive Officer
#### Judith E. Thorn, Plaintiff, v Wilmorite, Inc., et al., Defendants. Camillus Plaza East, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v K-Mart Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 445]

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of third-party defendant, K-Mart Corporation (K-Mart), for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. There are triable issues of fact concerning whether the stacking of the tables constituted a dangerous condition *(see, Hanley v Affronti,*278 AD2d 868; *Vanderwater v Sears,*277 AD2d 1056), whether the accident occurred on premises owned, occupied, controlled or specially used by K-Mart *(see, Siracuse v Race Off. Equip. Co.,*278 AD2d 894; *Brown v Congel,*241 AD2d 880, 881), and whether K-Mart affirmatively created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it *(see, Whyte v Whyte,*259 AD2d 1009, 1009-1010; *Tenebruso v Toys “R” Us*— NYTEX, 256 AD2d 1236, 1237; *DiFusco v Wal-Mart Discount Cities,*255 AD2d 937, 937-938). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Major, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Burns, JJ.
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Joint Application of ) 

 ) 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. ) 

and ) DOCKET OST-2000-6824

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED ) 

 ) 

under 14 CFR Part 212 for statements of ) 

authorization (code-sharing) ) 

__________________________________________) 

JOINT NOTICE OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

AND CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED

OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARING

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

John R. Mietus, Jr.

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MIETUS, LLC

6701 Democracy Boulevard Ste 300

Bethesda, Maryland 20817

(202) 747-5212

john@mietuslaw.com

Counsel for CATHAY PACIFIC

Robert A. Wirick

Managing Director, Regulatory and 

International Affairs 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5635

DFW Airport, Texas 75161

(817) 963-0394

robert.wirick@aa.com 

November 4, 2014
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KENDALL COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on February 4, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Carolyn Jane Babbitt, Appellant

V.

Ronald Hugh Below, Appellee

No. 04

- 13

- 00759

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 64

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we REVERSE the

part of the trial court’s judgment awarding interest and attorney’s fees. We

AFFIRM the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. We REMAND the case

to the trial court for a recalculation of interest consistent with this opinion and

for a new hearing on attorney’s fees. The parties shall be responsible for their

own costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on April 15, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 13

- 00759

- CV

Carolyn Jane Babbitt

v.

Ronald Hugh Below

(NO. 64 IN 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KENDALL COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

COPIES

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

INDIGENT $4.30

$10.00

$948.70

$221.00

$20.00

$100.00

$50.00

$25.00 PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

UNKNOWN

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID NONE GIVEN

JO CHRIS LOPEZ

MS. CHRISTINE THARP

N/A

BETH WATKINS

BETH WATKINS

BETH WATKINS

BETH WATKINS

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this April 15, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-17-00318-CV 

In the Interest of V.B. and T.B., 

Children 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

From the 323rd District Court 

of Tarrant County (323-103977-16) 

February 8, 2018 

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth 

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNION
PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
POSITION AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      323
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                         56
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   507
<PP&E>                                          10,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              786
<BONDS>                                          3,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,443
<SALES>                                            725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   802
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (57)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 58
<DISCONTINUED>                                     133
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       191
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77


</TABLE>
#### Mary Frances Murray GUIN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. OF WISCONSIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 6488.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 24, 1978.

*1188Daniel E. Broussard, Jr., Stephen E. Everett, Gold, Little, Simon, Weems & Bruser; Henry B. Bruser, III, Alexandria, for plaintiffs-appellants.

William J. Doran, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and CUTRER, JJ.

GUIDRY, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case of *Guin v. State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways, et al.,*our Docket No. 6486, 360 So.2d 1185, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

AFFIRMED.
“Ff oil es Vat
bla? Cote

war ered FL eer : fie i - ; gy aS tS rs ‘ si ty ni : sate, tare sae = papas : é ; egos” >
DEBARGE Se ‘OOMMERC OE AN D LABC UF ui ieee @ 112 01t.) STRIC TL7- G

tuldk ‘) THIRTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1910- POPULATION © Pewuaerar 5 Dist oF Ne. wet al M4

: as ce wa si 0 peed! si sich g (pant
Tovenser on OTHER DIVISION OF COUNTY .. « aa i classes bes WiKi eeitac es suet NAME OF INCORPORATED PLACE (J A. filly sag ekg eas banat grea WAAD of SITY... <tiate wee a oi 4)

<tr NAME OF INSTITUTION eo . eroshatganss a ENUMERATED BY ME ON THE _| qth _ DAY OF Serr _, 1910. =e zy. lad mc. LA... Enuwrrator.

] neett amon of taeile , heey, “etd tntieate the lines an whieh te enivise are sumle Pee tnatenedione | Ex

IsACATIO“N. SAME RELATION, PERSONAL DESU ar TION. NATIVITY, CNA NSIT, OOCLTATION,

of cach person whose place of abedr on April 1 = Ais is: er| th of each 4 of each bed, If harm in the Calted 8 cwir
April 5, rang seit ene se Et give Ve yprar bye mee ahs "it af forsign birth, give ibe pichowtay et g | be

a a Ta ‘ ffeamarei 3 | 3
2 Whether able i= * i

ts Factieh} © or ead Trade ut prefemion of, ot | * | mieaeen: or eat hee of 2

————— — give langunseapaben. riralar bled of werk — cssharenl of jeune! *¥ | «

a Sese by thts pereen, ao | we werk | ent of fi §

Place of birth of Father of Pines of birth of Mother of - eshasanaget ooleoman. fe: . | weetieg |] oe writ > = 6 Us

° thie person. 24 - ote ' . caews | A ‘éeriua] =
arcee at BK jwise its
tora. ieee. | = 5

4, §

or divereed.

1210, was In this family,

Eater carname Sret, then ry citea came and middle Weettenthte i ie mare
infilal, Lf any. family.

laclude every Hivisg on April 15, 1910. Omit
w Suhre bare ok since April 15, 1910.

tember
]

Street, aveees,
re
Howse number ite

4 Nember of dwelt
| tag house ta or-
} éer ef visitation.)

teh

on;

° .
cities er lowest).

| dee at lest birth
| day.

Nember of years ef)
| present marriage

marrisd, wide

| Whether ets
fa i
Ailendad By heal
“

7 | @

——

rae daha 1 eed

=n @ | Coles ar race.

i
al

=

|

ry

ad thes diaadae wudol Me “One
wea suse a Mao" re, i AL, or) Ay eee Wharf
Ld | ) big ha | Mu hii. Qaleesrecty G (lAddtg

: p~ § Sa Likh, Ne \ , y tha b sali. me Pet a A

| 1 [Hawedy ding. =f

se espa ve
ji

yale I 1 aaa Ha 0. 2

BRRESEREE

> es.

Samat

:

=
=

es AAA au
dit) ots. cur, | roach — ;

12 rosea |

Hara chuattt |e
Me ride

iid Seeau aa ate
ty) ¢ }

Hot;
R
iS

Fy

>

SS
Re,

a oe
RS ©

2
pe]

=>
PE

~z
te

~2
o

—

ERE
CEBSE

IN

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

*%

ESefeeR8

w
©

%,
,

AS

Visit http://(www.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.

EUW has | | aie Sri boa ae 4 -)
WOES | Lt ae, | v 2 rien by Bee i Ov a SE?) Ae, 6 VR et
{ nt ih LAL nc aly PUY Lap. |
pia: mn Kay N51 | ad Ay Wo yh"! (
HAs. fm aM? | Al | Canna 2 yn ta AD .
At | 2 Bree

\

‘

SBRESBRESSERSBRSERFBSRFSSSAAGS

Ls
x)

\W

2883.
**Exhibit 99.2**

**MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING**

Barrick’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. 

Barrick’s management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as atDecember 31, 2012. Barrick’s Management used the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting. Based on Barrickmanagement’s assessment, Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting is effective as at December 31, 2012. 

The effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2012 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Accountants, as stated in their reportwhich is located on pages 71 - 73 of Barrick’s 2012 Annual Financial Statements.
#### Robert P. HOWELL, Appellant, v. ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-117.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 11143.

#### Teare *v.*The German-American Bank et al.

Decided October 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Ottawa county.

*Messrs. Smith,*
      *492
      *Taft & Arter,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. George A. True*and *Mr. R. H. Crawford,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis, and Price, JJ., concur.