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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      557,052
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,547
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         180,057
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        40,936
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  78,567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 859,159
<COMMON>                                        51,418
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       43,233
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            178,857
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 273,508
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           29,360
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           208,932
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  77,199
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       54
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      1,743
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   507
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 267,856
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  859,159
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      610,313
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            23,927
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     138,749
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     230,640
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         55,135
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 583
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  55,718
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        17,546
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,365
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,926
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   44,439
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        17,894
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       16,767
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         103,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    86.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    86.43
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|  | 1. | 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 conditions and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                                                    |                                                  |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                               |                                             |
| Dated:                November 13, 2007 |                                                                    | /s/ Howard                B.                Katz |
|                                    | Howard                  B. KatzChief                  Executive Officer |

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9766]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that 
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings 
related to the transmission planning activities of the New York 
Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

Joint Inter-Regional Planning Task Force/Electric System Planning 
Working Group

April 23, 2012, 11 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time;
May 31, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time;
June 26, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time;
July 10, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time;
July 24, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time;
August 6, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time;
August 28, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time;
September 24, 2012, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Local Time.

    The above-referenced meetings will be held at: NYISO's offices, 
Rensselaer, NY.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.nyiso.com.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters 
at issue in the following proceeding:
    Docket No. ER08-1281, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1bb909c9482dfb490829e9fb197948392df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fc5eee2eafca1caeefce0e1cfe9eafdeca1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: April 17, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9766 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     I, Sundaresan Raja, Chief Executive Officer of Airbee Wireless, Inc., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Airbee Wireless, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations 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 establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-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 that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich 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 effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased 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 fiscal quarter(the registrant’s first fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; 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. /s/ Sundaresan Raja Sundaresan RajaChief Executive Officer August 10, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelvin Davis, Also Known as Kelvin Bowens, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen J. Crane, J.), rendered December 7, 1988, convicting defendant after jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 12/2 to 25 years on the manslaughter count, to run consecutively to two concurrent terms of *ZVz*to 7 years on the remaining counts, unanimously affirmed.

*370In the early morning hours of February 15, 1987, two private security guards were summoned to an apartment at the Martinique Hotel by residents complaining of a loud argument between defendant and his wife. One of the guards argued and grappled with defendant, at one point holding him against the floor in an attempt to calm defendant down. After defendant was released, and as the guards were leaving, defendant grabbed a sawed-off shotgun which he kept in his apartment and, at close range, shot and killed the security guard, who in defendant’s mind had "disrespected” him.

Defendant does not challenge his guilt of either manslaughter or possession of a weapon. He does contend that his sentence was both illegal, and excessive. Neither claim has merit.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, consecutive sentences were properly imposed pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2) for the manslaughter and possession of a weapon counts, since possession of the weapon and its subsequent use were separate successive acts. *(People v Robbins,*118 AD2d 820, *lv denied*67 NY2d 949.) Nor were the aggregate sentences imposed excessive, in view of the brutality of the present offenses and defendant’s prior criminal history.

The contention that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel is predicated on counsel’s alleged failure to advise defendant of his right to testify before the grand jury. The contention is bereft of any factual predicate, as the trial court, after a hearing, found that defendant was in fact advised of his right to testify by his assigned Legal Aid attorney. We discern no basis to disturb the trial court’s findings of fact in this regard. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 9, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00670

- CR

RASHARD AVERY JONES , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19

- 00075

- K



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Reichek Rashard Avery Jones appeals the trial court’s April 29, 2019 o rder placing him on deferred adjudication for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on May 1, 2019 which was granted. On May 3, 2019, appellant filed his notice of appeal. When the trial court grants a mot ion for new trial, the case is restored to its position before
the former trial. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 21.9(b). Because there is no sentence to be appealed, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. See Waller v. State , 931 S.W.2d 640, 643

– 44 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 1996, no pet.). We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)

190670F.U05 /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RASHARD AVERY JONES, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00670

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19

- 00075

- K. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek, Justices Schenck and Osborne p articipating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 9th day of July, 2019.
<pre>

EXHIBIT 10.18 - PROMISSORY NOTE DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2001 MADE BY THE
REGISTRANT IN FAVOR OF ROBERT SPIGNO

                               PROMISSORY NOTE

        $56,880.00                                     September 30, 2001

	For value received, $56,880.00, CONECTISYS CORPORATION ("MAKER")
	hereby promises to pay to the order of ROBERT A. SPIGNO, ("LENDER")
	on demand, at 24530 Town Center Drive, Valencia, California 91355
	or other place as may be designated in writing by the holder of
	this Promissory Note (the "Note") the principal sum of Fifty-Six
	Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Dollars and 00/100 ($56,880.00) (the
	"PRINCIPAL"), which unpaid Principal Sum shall bear interest at the
	rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum.  LENDER may from time to
	time during the duration of this Note make further advances to
	MAKER up to an aggregate amount of $150,000.00. Said Advances shall
	be added to the then current outstanding balance and together shall
	comprise the total amount then due and owing under the same terms
	and conditions of this Note. The unpaid Principal Sum shall be due
	and payable on September 1, 2002.

	The MAKER hereof waives resentment for payment, protest, notice of
	nonpayment and of protest, and agrees to any extension of time of
	payment and partial payments before, or at maturity, and if this
	Note or interest thereon is not paid when due, or suit is brought,
	agrees to pay all reasonable cost of collection, including attorney
	fees.

	MAKER acknowledges that this Note evidences a business loan, and
	not a consumer loan, not a consumer related loan defined in the
	Uniform Consumer Credit. The laws of the State of California shall
	govern the form and essential validity of this Note.  Time is of
	the essence with respect to the MAKER'S obligations and agreements
	under this Note.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed as of the date
	herein above set forth.

	CONECTISYS CORPORATION


	By:/s/ Patricia A. Spigno
	   Patricia A. Spigno
	   Secretary & Treasurer
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-3 (No. 333-127095, No. 333-125602, No. 333-122752, No. 333-33174, No.
333-34822 and No. 333-89973) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-121041, No. 333-94603 and
No. 333-82541) of MSGI Security Solutions, Inc. and Subsidiaries, of our report
dated October 13, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements as of
June 30, 2009 and 2008 and for each of the years then ended, which is included
in this Form 10-K filing, which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the ability of MSGI Security
Solutions, Inc. and Subsidiaries to continue as a going concern.




/s/
Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP





October
13, 2009


Edison,
New Jersey
AMS Animal Handling and Welfare Performance – Fiscal Year: 20191/,2/,3/

Species / Total # Animals Observed Missed Stuns4/,5/ Sensible Animals on Rail

Supplier (% of Grand Total) # % # %

Beef Total 2,042 (36.8) 0 0 0 0

S1 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S2 200 (3.6) 0 0 0 0

S4 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S5 200 (3.6) 0 0 0 0

S6 50 (0.9) 0 0 0 0

S10 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S11 100 (1.8) ■ ■ 0 0

S12 200 (3.6) 0 0 0 0

S14 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S21 50 (0.9) 0 0 0 0

S25 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S28 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S296/ 22 (0.4) 0 0 0 0

S31 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S32 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S41 300 (5.4) 0 0 0 0

S42 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S446/ 20 (0.4) 0 0 0 0

Pork Total 3,400 (61.3) 0 0 0 0

S1 200 (3.6) --- --- 0 0

S2 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S3 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S4 300 (5.4) --- --- 0 0

S5 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S6 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S7 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S8 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S9 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S10 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S11 200 (3.6) --- --- 0 0

S12 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S13 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S14 300 (5.4) --- --- 0 0

S15 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

S16 200 (3.6) --- --- 0 0

S17 200 (3.6) --- --- 0 0

S18 200 (3.6) --- --- 0 0

S19 200 (3.6) --- --- 0 0

S20 200 (3.6) --- --- 0 0

S21 200 (3.6) --- --- 0 0

S22 100 (1.8) --- --- 0 0

Lamb Total 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

S3 100 (1.8) 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 5,542 (100.0) 0 0 0 0

1/A full description of the animal handling and welfare purchase program requirements is available here:

2/Production Dates: October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

3/Data summarized from findings obtained from AMS/Livestock and Poultry Program/Quality Assessment Division audits.

4/Religious harvest (Kosher and Halal) is exempt from effective stunning calculations and is denoted with “■”.

5/Suppliers utilizing CO2 stunning (e.g. gondolas) are not evaluated for missed stuns and are denoted with “---”.

6/Low capacity establishment.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 14, 2015

No. 04-14-00621-CV

IN THE INT OF CJT, A Child,

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7,848

Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellants Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellants’ brief is due on April 16, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 14th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the report of Entrx Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wayne W. Mills, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Brian D. Niebur, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  i.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andii.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Wayne W. Mills  Wayne W. Mills
Chief Executive Officer
March 24, 2004 /s/ Brian D. Niebur  Brian D. Niebur
Chief Financial Officer
March 24, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 7, 2015

No. 04-15-00202-CV

IN RE Nasser NAKISSA and Estrella Medical Masters, LTD.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On April 7, 2015, relators Nasser Nakissa and Estrella Medical Masters, LTD. filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus with a motion for immediate temporary relief pending a ruling on 

the mandamus petition. The court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus and motion for immediate temporary relief are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on April 7, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CI00124, styled Nasser Nakissa and Estrella Medical Masters, LTD. 

v. Laura Felix Cortez, AR Coley, LLC and Coley Mortgage Investments, Inc., pending in the 288th Judicial District 

Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Peter A. Sakai presiding.
**Exhibit21.1**

**BRIDGFORDFOODS CORPORATION**

**SUBSIDIARIESOF REGISTRANT**
| Name of Subsidiary                                     | ** ** | **State in which Incorporated** |
|--------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Bridgford Marketing Company                            |       | California                                     |
| Bridgford Meat Company                                 |       | California                                     |
| Bridgford Food Processing  Corporation                 |       | California                                     |
| Bridgford Food  Processing of Texas, L.P.**            |       | Texas                                          |
| A.S.I. Corporation                                     |       | California                                     |
| Bridgford Distributing  Company of Delaware (inactive) |       | Delaware                                       |
| American Ham Processors,  Inc.*                        |       | Delaware                                       |
| Bert Packing Company  (inactive)                       |       | Illinois                                       |
| Moriarty Meat Company  (inactive)                      |       | Illinois                                       |
|                                                   |       |                                           |

----

* - No shares have been issued.

** - Limited Partnership.

1

----
#### Driscoll Estate Agents, Inc., Appellant, v H. Edward Hird et al., Respondents.

—In an action to recover real estate broker’s commissions, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered October 24, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the plaintiff alleges it earned real estate broker’s commissions, it concedes, and documents submitted on defendants’ motion to dismiss *(see,*CPLR 3211 [a] [1], [7]) demonstrate, that the parties agreed that the commissions would be due only "as, if and when title passes except for willful default on the part of’ the defendants. The complaint contains no factual allegations indicating that the defendants committed any acts or failed to perform under the contracts of sale so as to cause the failures to close title *(see, Graff v Billet,*64 NY2d 899; *Levy v Lacey,*22 NY2d 271). The plaintiff instead complains of the defendants’ "willful” failure to insist on performance by the contract vendees who canceled, perhaps wrongfully, the contracts of sale. However, that failure is, as a matter of law, insufficient to constitute a default within the meaning of the plaintiffs agreeirients with the defendants. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not come forward with any evidence to support a claim that the defendants failed to satisfy certain *647conditions of the contracts of sale. Thus, the Supreme Court properly declined to grant the plaintiffs application for leave to replead. In any event, this application was procedurally improper, since it was made only upon oral argument of the defendants’ motion to dismiss *(see,*CPLR 3211 [e]). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

5