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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             620
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      815
<ALLOWANCES>                                        42
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          52,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,431
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,434
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,299
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (61)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   345
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (580)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (580)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (580)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12.4



CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Neil Smith, as Group Finance Director of Telewest Communications plc (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                |  |  |  |        |  |                       
|------ |  | -------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ----------------------
|       |  |                |  | 
|Dated: |  | March 24, 2004 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Neil Smith        
|       |  |                |  |  |  |        |  |                       
|       |  |                |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Neil Smith            
|       |  |                |  |  |  | Title: |  | Group Finance Director



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John A. Rich, Plaintiff, *v.*Wilma E. Rich, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Madison County,

April 7, 1959.

*A. G. Gambitta*for plaintiff.

*Joseph R. Scavone,*special guardian, for defendant.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Thomas Burke*of counsel), for Binghamton State Hospital.

Howard A. Zeller, J.

Upon the trial of this matrimonial action the special guardian of the incompetent defendant moved alternatively for a dismissal of the action or for mistrial. The grounds for special guardian’s objection to the prosecution of the action is the civil disability of the plaintiff, who initiated the suit while on parole from a State penitentiary but who was *620recommitted as a parole violator prior to the trial of this action.

Under the provisions of section 510 of the Penal Law the right to sue a civil action and the subsequent use of court process are civil rights which are suspended but not forfeited upon imprisonment in a State penitentiary. Section 510 also restores such civil rights to a parolee so that this action was properly commenced. Since plaintiff’s recommitment serves only to suspend again his civil rights rather than to work a forfeiture of them, the special guardian’s motion to dismiss the action should be denied. *(Nastasi*v. *State of New York,*186 Misc. 1051.)

HoAvever, the reimprisonment of the plaintiff as a parole violator does require that the court’s processes be denied him and the action should be abated until his present civil disability shall have been terminated. *(Glena*v. *State of New York,*207 Misc. 776; *Nastasi*v. *State of New York, supra.)*

Special guardian’s motion for mistrial should be .granted, without costs.

Submit order accordingly.
EXHIBIT 4(iii)

         Amendment to the Commitment Letter by and among Nomura Securities
    International, Inc., Nomura Asset Capital Corporation and CRIIMI MAE Inc.





                                    AMENDMENT

     This amendment is dated as June 14, 1995.  Reference is made to (i) the
Commitment Letter dated as of April 30, 1993 (the "April Commitment Letter") by
and among Nomura Securities International, INC. ("NSI"), Nomura Asset Capital
Corporation ("NACC") and CRI Insured Mortgage Association, Inc. (now known as
CRIIMI MAE INC.)("Criimi Mae"), as amended and (ii) the Commitment Letter dated
as of October 27, 1993 (the "October Commitment Letter" and together with the
April Commitment Letter the "Commitment Letters") by and among NSI, NACC, and
Criimi Mae, as amended and (iii) each of the Committed Repurchase Agreements
subject to the Commitment Letters, as amended.  Terms not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Commitment Letters.

1.   The first paragraph of Section 3 of the April Commitment Letter is amended
by deleting the phrase "the margin requirement for GNMA Securities is 105%" at
the end thereof and replacing it with the following:

     "the margin requirement for GNMA Securities is 110%; provided, however,
     that NSI will not exercise its rights under Section 4(a) of the Committed
     Repurchase Agreement until the Collateral Deficit is less than or equal to
     8% of the then outstanding Repurchase Price."

2.   The first paragraph of Section 3 of the October Commitment Letter is
amended by deleting the phrase "the margin requirement for GNMA Securities is
107%" at the end thereof and replacing it with the following:

     "the margin requirement for GNMA Securities is 110%; provided, however,
     that NSI will not exercise its rights under Section 4(a) of the Committed
     Repurchase Agreement until the Collateral Deficit is less than or equal to
     8% of the then outstanding Repurchase Price."

3.   Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Commitment
Letters and the Facility Agreements, including amendments thereto, shall remain
in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this amendment to the
Commitment Letters.

CRIIMI MAE Inc.             Nomura Securities International, Inc.



By:/s/ Jay R. Cohen         By: /s/  William Rooney
   ------------------          -------------------------<PAGE>
#### ROBERT H. VALENTI ET AL. *v.*ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF STONINGTON ET AL.*

*

 The appeal was withdrawn September 3, 1998.

The defendants Anthony J. Torraca and Francis Krackowski’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 937 (AC 16235), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the trial court improperly substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board of appeals and improperly *918focus on whether a material change in circumstances existed, rather than on whether the record before it supported the board’s finding of hardship, in violation of the Appellate Court’s decision in *Fernandes*v. *Zoning Board of Appeals,*24 Conn. App. 49, cert. granted, 218 Conn. 909 (1991), rev’d on court order for failure to defend with due diligence?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15908.

*Peter J. Bartinik, Sr.,*in support of the petition.

Decided April 8, 1998
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the period ended November 26, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott J. Miller, ChiefReporting and Compliance Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

|     |  |                                                                                                      |
|-----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ Scott J. Miller                                                                                  |
|     |  | Scott J. Miller*Chief Reporting and Compliance Officer	(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

Date: January 9, 2006
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven D. Hunt, certify that: 

     1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. The registrant'sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant'sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant's Board of Directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

     b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting. 

|     |  |                                         |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|     |  | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: July 10, 2006
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 accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Ryan K. Wuerch,
Director and Chief Executive Officer of Motricity, Inc. (the Registrant), hereby certifies that:



|1. | The Registrants quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
(the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 5, 2010



/s/ Ryan K. WuerchRyan K. WuerchChief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Ronnie E. CHAPLIN, Respondent.

No. 67492.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 26, 1986.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Gregory G. Costas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

F. Townsend Hawkes of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tallahassee and Ronnie E. Chaplin in pro. per., Sneads, for respondent.

EHRLICH, Justice.

We have for our review *Chaplin v. State,*473 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), which expressly and directly conflicts with other decisions of this court and other district courts of appeal. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and approve the decision below.

Respondent was found guilty by a jury of two counts of armed robbery. Respondent elected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines and his score sheet totaled 186 points for a recommended range of 9-12 years incarceration. However, as the state concedes, the score sheet erroneously contained an additional 25 points, which, if properly calculated initially, would have resulted in a total point score of 161, for a recommended range of 7-9 years. Counsel for respondent did not raise this computational error on direct appeal, *Chaplin v. State,*449 So.2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), but instead raised this issue for the first time in a motion for post-convic*53tion relief, which was denied by the trial court. The district court reversed, analogizing the instant computational error to those cases which have permitted post-con-viction relief for errors in the computation of credit for jail time. 473 So.2d at 844.

In *State v. Whitfield,*487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986), we held that a computational error in a sentencing guidelines score sheet could be raised on direct appeal even though a contemporaneous objection was not made at trial, where “the impact of the error was that the trial court departed from the sentencing guidelines in rule 3.701 without making the mandatorily written, clear and convincing reasons for departure.” At 1047. We also amended Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in order to facilitate the correction of these computational errors at the trial court level. *Id.*at 1047. This amendment is dispositive of the issue before us, as it allows the trial court to correct, at any time, an incorrect calculation of a sentencing guidelines score sheet.

Accordingly, we approve the result reached by the district court below.1

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

1

. We agree with the district court that respondent is entitled to have his guidelines score sheet correctly calculated and, similarly, that the trial court should be given an opportunity to consider whether departure from the guidelines should be ordered. 473 So.2d at 844.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139181 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139181 

 COA: 284710 

Muskegon CC: 05-051910-FC 

WILLIAM LEE LATHROP, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Danny SANFORD.

No. 88-K-0601.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re State of Louisiana; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KA-7507; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 314-548.

*1055Prior report: La.App., 520 So.2d 122.

Denied.

CALOGERO, MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-826V Filed: December 15, 2015 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MARY PONSNESS, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccination; Shoulder * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA ”); Special Processing Unit AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Lara Ann Englund, U.S. D epartment of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On August 3, 2015, petitioner filed a pet ition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered shoulder injuries as a result of her January 11, 2013 influenza [“flu”] vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 14, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compen sation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “opines t hat petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury relat ed to vaccine administration (SIRVA)” and that “petitioner’s SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccination she received on January 11, 2013.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “based on the current record, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequi sites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-3 47, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 21

To designate September 29, 1999, as ‘‘Veterans of Foreign Wars of the

United States Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 21, 1999

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr.

HUTCHINSON, Mr. GREGG, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BIDEN,

Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr.

COVERDELL) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate September 29, 1999, as ‘‘Veterans of Foreign

Wars of the United States Day’’.

Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

was founded on September 29, 1899;

Whereas the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States will occur on

September 29, 1999;

Whereas for the past 100 years, the Veterans of Foreign

Wars of the United States has made valuable contributions to the well-being of veterans of the Armed Forces

and to the States and their communities, and has exhib-
2

•SJ 21 IS

ited national leadership on issues of importance to all veterans of the Armed Forces; and

Whereas the centennial anniversary of the founding of the

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States presents

an opportunity to recognize, honor, and pay tribute to

the more than 2,000,000 veterans of the Armed Forces

represented by that organization, and to all the individuals who have served in the Armed Forces: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That September 29, 1999, is designated as ‘‘Veterans of

4 Foreign Wars of the United States Day’’, and the Presi5 dent of the United States is authorized and requested to

6 issue a proclamation calling upon all Government agencies

7 and the people of the United States to observe the day

8 with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities.

Æ