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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                                   10,665
<SECURITIES>                                                              4,978
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            58,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              4,062
<INVENTORY>                                                              37,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                        118,596
<PP&E>                                                                   20,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            8,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          148,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    23,072
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                                 22,999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                               49,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            148,454
<SALES>                                                                 115,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                        120,792
<CGS>                                                                    66,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            66,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                              0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          2,073
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                           26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          11,669 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              4,668
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                       7,001 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                              7,001
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                              1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 0
        

</TABLE>
#### Harry HAINTA and Buddy A. Tsotaddle, Petitioners, v. The STATE of Oklahoma et al., Respondents.

No. PC-77-53.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 2, 1977.

*102Houston Bus Hill, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

Petitioners Harry Hainta and Buddy A. Tsotaddle, hereinafter referred to as defendants were convicted in the District Court, Kiowa County, Case No. CRF — 74-39 of Second Degree Rape. No appeal of right was perfected to this Court within the time provided by law. An appeal from said order Denying Post Conviction Relief has been timely filed with this Court.

The defendants contend that the juvenile certification hearing had by them on August 8, 1974, was fatally defective, and that therefore the District Court was without jurisdiction to try them as adults. These allegations bring Petitioners within the purview of the Post Conviction Relief provision of 22 O.S.1971, § 1080(b). Furthermore, we agree.

The defendants named herein, and one other, Norman Franklin Brown, were all tried for the same act. Brown was given a severance and tried separately. He was given a separate certification hearing as well. Brown’s conviction was reversed by this Court on May 13, 1976. See: *Brown v. State,*Okl.Cr., 550 P.2d 963 (1976), for errors in the certification procedure. Specifically we held that the failure to notify Brown's parents or guardian in writing was fatally erroneous, citing *Crandell v. State,*Okl.Cr., 539 P.2d 398 (1975), and *In re Gault,*387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). Further in *Brown,*supra we said that the failure of the Court to consider the guidelines of Section 1112(b) was also erroneous, citing *J. T. P. v. State,*Okl.Cr., 544 P.2d 1270 (1975).

Upon careful review of the record and the transcript of this case, we are of the opinion that the same errors complained of in *Brown v. State,*supra, are present here, and the case must therefore be REVERSED. No written notice was provided the parents or guardian of said defendants, and the juvenile court made no finding as to the ultimate issues of a certification hearing, to-wit: whether there was prose-cutive merit to the case, and whether the defendants were amenable to the rehabilitative services and facilities of the juvenile court.

*103The trial court is also referred to the provisions of the Juvenile Act concerning a child’s right to bail.

The trial court should also note *King v. State,*Okl.Cr., 518 P.2d 889 (1974), dealing with the proper charge when rape is committed by one under the age of eighteen years.

For the above and foregoing reasons the conviction is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS consistent with this opinion.

BUSSEY, P. J., and BLISS, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      77,468,210
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,319,700
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,300,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                77,220
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                486,653,872
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      69,079,622
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        69,852,000
<LOANS>                                    993,189,110
<ALLOWANCE>                               (12,732,131)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,718,483,797
<DEPOSITS>                               1,364,270,491
<SHORT-TERM>                               166,332,576
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         21,839,431
<LONG-TERM>                                 36,662,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    43,335,120
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,044,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,718,483,797
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             86,020,464
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           30,357,924
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             1,860,979
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           118,239,367
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          49,310,346
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,795,257
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       60,133,764
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                3,900,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             493,822
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             58,441,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             25,297,735
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  25,297,735
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                18,010,107
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01<F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.93
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,227,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,972,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               513,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                500,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            11,328,359
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                4,229,385
<RECOVERIES>                                 1,733,157
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           12,732,131
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        12,732,131
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Restated for 2-for-1 stock split, effective February 1998.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                          41,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,263
<PP&E>                                         170,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,672
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,188
<SALES>                                        309,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               309,071
<CGS>                                          264,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  298,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,946
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,379
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,379
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

BRESLER & REINER, INC.        Section 906 Certification

Certificate of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers of Bresler & Reiner, Inc.

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 Annual Report of Bresler & Reiner, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officers of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/SIDNEY M. BRESLERSIDNEY M. BRESLER
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER    
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/DARRYL M. EDELSTEINDARRYL M. EDELSTEIN
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Dated:
March 31, 2005

---



QuickLinks
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-659V

Filed: March 26, 2015

Not for Publication

*************************************

TAMMY DURRE, *

*

Petitioner, * 

*

* Damages decision based on stipulation; 

v. * influenza (flu) vaccine; optic neuritis

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Edward M. Kraus, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.

Lara A. Englund, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On March 26, 2015, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle 

this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that she suffered optic neuritis that

was caused by her September 13, 2010 receipt of influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petitioner further 

alleges that she suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent 

denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s optic neuritis, any other injury, or her current 

condition. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

delete such material from public access.
2

The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby 

adopts the parties’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and 

on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of

$1,050,000.00, representing reimbursement for all damages that would be available under 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) (2006). The award shall be in the form of a check payable to petitioner in the 

amount of $1,050,000.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine
Foods, Inc.(the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended May 28, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Fred R. Adams, Jr.Fred R. Adams,
Jr.Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Timothy A. Dawson  Timothy A.
DawsonChief Financial Officer

Date:  August 10, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                         Page 30

                                  Exhibit 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael O. Moore, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of The Cato Corporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that on the date of this
Certification:

1.       the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
ended February 1, 2003 (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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: April 8, 2004

                                          /s/ Michael O. Moore
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Michael O. Moore
                                          Executive Vice President
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Exhibit 4.11


                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                             DELPHI FINANCE TRUST I


     This Certificate of Trust is being executed as of April 19, 2002 for the
purpose of creating a business trust pursuant to the Delaware Business Trust
Act, 12 Del. C.ss.ss. 3801 et seq. (the "Act").

     The undersigned hereby certify as follows:

     1. Name. The name of the business trust is Delphi Finance Trust I (the
"Trust").

     2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the Delaware resident
trustee of the Trust meeting the requirements of Section 3807 of the Act are as
follows:

                           Christiana Bank & Trust Company
                           1314 King Street
                           Wilmington, DE  19801

     3. Effective. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective immediately upon
filing in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

     4. Counterparts. This Certificate of Trust may be executed in one or more
counterparts.



<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the trustees of the
Trust, have duly executed this Certificate of Trust as of the day and year first
above written.

                           CHRISTIANA BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
                           as Delaware Trustee



                           By: /s/ Debra A. Balliet
                               -------------------------------------------
                               Name:   Debra A. Balliet
                               Title:  Trust Officer

                               /s/ Robert M. Smith, Jr.
                               ---------------------------------------
                               Robert M. Smith, Jr., as Regular Trustee


                               /s/ Chad W. Coulter
                               ---------------------------------------
                               Chad W. Coulter, as Regular Trustee


                               /s/ Thomas W. Burghart
                               ---------------------------------------
                               Thomas W. Burghart, as Regular Trustee
#### Harsh Nayyar, Appellant, v Kathleen Barran, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The only issues raised by petitioner on appeal from the order entered December 15, 1989 were decided by the order entered September 15, 1989 from which no appeal was taken. Those issues are not properly before the court. (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Family Court, Corning, J.—Custody.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
Charge questions for presentation #2 on Algae Mass Production

Intrinsic Hazards and Effects Data 1) Besides toxins and the potential for harmful algal blooms (HABs), what other hazards may be associated with the mass production of algae? (e.g., invasiveness, ecological effects, effects on aquatic food webs, etc)

a. How can these hazards be best detected/monitored? How can these hazards be best
measured?
b. What types of data can be collected and should we request/gather during the submission p rocess in order to evaluate these potential hazards? 2) W hat algae data are available to help determine the risk posed by algal mass production during the submission process?

a. Are data available about natural occurring or wild

- type algae, when found or grown i n high concentrations that can be used to evaluate the effects of engineered algae mass
grown for commercial purposes ? Exposure Considerations 3) What potential hazards do different containment systems pose and should be considered and evaluated during a risk assessment?

a. How can a submitter demonstrate a containment system is secure or poses no threat to the surrounding environment?

Charge q uestions for presentat ion #3 on Advanced Genetic Engineering 4) What information should be included w hen submitting informat ion on the construct used to develop a new organism in which the genetic code has been altered usi ng synthetic biology techniques ?

a. Should data requirements be different for these organisms ? If so, why? 5) How can the predicted function of a genetically engi neered construct be shown to be
limited to the purpose for which it was designed ?

a. How can a construct based on a gene known to encode multiple functions (i.e. under
different conditions or in other species ) be shown to be contained? 6) When assessing xenonucleic acids

- based constructs, what biological containment methods are best employed?

a. What information can be used to confirm that a biological containment method is safe and poses no risk to the environment?
b. What differences exist and should be consider when assessing the risk of RNA versus
DNA modifications?

Charge question for concluding session 7) What questions have we not asked that are relevant to our task? What have we missed?
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 22, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00900-CV

TIM SCHOENBAUER, Appellant

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-04889

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Schenck, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Schenck

On July 22, 2019, the trial court signed an order granting appellee’s application for an 

expedited order under rule of civil procedure 736 to proceed with a foreclosure sale of 

appellant’s property. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 736. Appellant appeals from this order. Such an order 

is not subject to appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c); Grant-Brooks v. FV-1, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 

933 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied). Because it appeared this Court lacks jurisdiction 

over this appeal, we instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our concern with an 

opportunity for appellee to respond. The parties complied.

Nothing in appellant’s letter brief demonstrates this Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal.
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

 

190900F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TIM SCHOENBAUER, Appellant

No. 05-19-00900-CV V.

DEUTSCHE BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-04889.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Myers and Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee DEUTSCHE BANK recover its costs of this appeal from 

appellant TIM SCHOENBAUER.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of November, 2019.