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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ONHEALTH
NETWORK COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                         13,751
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     506
<ALLOWANCES>                                      275
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,266
<PP&E>                                          1,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                    843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,724
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          160
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,037
<SALES>                                           200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  200
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   19
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,160)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,160)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,160)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4247 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4247

To repeal title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
                            Protection Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2017

   Mr. Budd introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
                            Protection Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Financial Market Freedom 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TITLE VIII.

    (a) Repeal.--Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.) is repealed, and 
provisions of law amended by such title are restored and revived as if 
such title had never been enacted.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is 
amended by striking the items relating to title VIII.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 San Jose International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 230, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher Greenwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
6th day of August 2003.

/s/ Christopher Greenwood
--------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
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 Medical Connections Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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





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





3.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Date:  May 13, 2011By:
/s/ Jeffrey RosenfeldJeffrey Rosenfeld,Chief Executive Officer
Order entered December 2 9 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 01017
- CV KALA DHARMA, Appellant

V. WHITLEY PENN, LLP, Appellee On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. DF
- 12
- 12551



### O RDER
W e GRANT court reporter Georgina E. T. Ware’s December 17, 2015 request for extension of time to file the reporter’s record and ORDER the record be filed no later than January 19, 2016

.
/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
#### Lindly & Company, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Telephonics Corp. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

October 9, 1959.

*Robert E. Burns*for plaintiff.

*Morrison & Dougherty*for Vincent E. Lynch, defendant.

Mario Pittoni, J.

The complaint sets forth 7 causes of action. The defendant Lynch served a demand for a bill of particulars in regard to 120 items in 14 pages of single-spaced type. The plaintiff moves to vacate the demand.

Motion is *granted*without prejudice to defendant Lynch serving an appropriate demand or moving for an order for a suitable bill of particulars.

After more than six hours of study of the complaint and demand, and after having reviewed in detail only one third of the items, the court is of the opinion that though the defendant is entitled to some of the items, these are in the minority and that the defendant, instead of seeking particulars of plaintiff’s claim, desires the plaintiff’s evidence in advance of trial. This is not the function of a bill of particulars.

In the language of *American Mint Corp.*v. *Ex-Lax*(260 App. Div. 576, 577 [1st Dept.]), “We think defendant’s demand, both in its form and in its extent, is so unreasonable, meticulous, unnecessarily repetitious, and burdensome that it should have been denied in its entirety as it constitutes a plain abuse of the right to a bill of particulars. To grant it in its present form would not help properly to limit and clarify the issues and the proof but would serve confusion and prolixity ”. (Also *Universal Metal Prods. Co.*v. *De-Mornay Budd, Inc.,*275 App. Div. 575 [1st Dept.] and *Mutual Life Ins. Co.*v. *Tailored Woman,*275 App. Div. 798 [1st Dept.].)

Also, as in *Winter stein*v. *Mauntner*(284 App. Div. 962 [1st Dept.]), “ We recognize that the complaint is lengthy but this does not justify the meticulous and unnecessarily repetitious demand served herein ”.

*519Further, as said in *Link Metal Finishing Corp.*v. *Moskowitz*(95 N. Y. S. 2d 766, 768), *“*Where a demand is prolix and seeks to meticulously obtain many items of particulars including matters of evidence and which will be burdensome, it is considered more desirable to vacate the demand than to attempt to reconstruct it by the allowance of those items which may be authorized”. See, also, *Kramer*v. *Hubbell*(67 N. Y. S. 2d 43) to the same effect.

The motion is *granted.*

Order signed.
**Exhibit 15.1**

November 4, 2009 

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

MCG Capital Corporation 

We are aware of theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137565) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 2006 Employee Restricted Stock Plan of MCG Capital Corporation and the 2006 Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Plan ofMCG Capital Corporation of our report dated November 4, 2009 relating to the unaudited consolidated interim financial statements and schedules of MCG Capital Corporation included in its Form 10-Q for the three- and nine-month periods endedSeptember 30, 2009 and 2008. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

GERALDINE JONES, * No. 13-786V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

v. * Filed: February 11, 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

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

Kate Westad, Lommen Abdo, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner;

Lindsay Corliss, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On February 10, 2015, respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections 

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her 

application to request $21,000.00, an amount to which respondent does not object. 

The Court awards this amount.

On October 9, 2013, Geraldine Jones filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the influenza vaccine, which she received on October 13, 2010, 

caused her to develop immune-mediated thrombocytopenic purpura (“ITP”). 

Petitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision, 

filed Jan. 14, 2015. Because petitioner received compensation, she is entitled to an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

 

1

The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Petitioner seeks a total of $21,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her 

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states 

that she incurred no out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. 

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $21,000.00 in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Kate Westad, for attorneys’ fees 

and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357-

6353.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Peter B. Bedford, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bedford Property Investors, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

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



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.







March 12, 2004

/s/ Peter B. Bedford

Peter B. Bedford

Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE
AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made effective January 5, 2012 (the “Effective Date”) by and between ST. LOUIS SURGICAL PROPERTIES, LC, a Missouri limited liability company, as “Seller” and CARTER VALIDUS PROPERTIES,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as “Buyer”. 
 RECITALS 

A. Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Purchase Agreement with an Effective Date of December 22, 2011 (the
“Contract”) for a certain tract or parcel of land and all improvements thereon, including the building located in Creve Coeur, Missouri (the “Property”). 
 B. The parties have agreed to extend the Review Period. 
 NOW THEREFORE, for ten
dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the
Contract. 
 2. Review Period. Section 4.01 of the Contract is amended by deleting the date of
the thirtieth (30th) day following the Effective Date
and inserting in lieu thereof the date of January 31, 2012. 
 3. Closing. Section 6.01 of the Contract is
amended to provide that Closing will occur on the earlier of the date which is (i) February 23, 2012 or (ii) such other date or time as the parties mutually agree (the “Closing Date”). 

4. Ratification. Except as modified hereby, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are
hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts and
transmitted via facsimile, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. 
 [Signature page follows.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals effective as
of the Effective Date. 
  

									
	WITNESSES:	 		 	SELLER:
				
		 		 		 	 ST. LOUIS SURGICAL PROPERTIES, LC,
 a Missouri limited liability company

					
	 	 	 	 		 	By:	 	/s/    John D. Hirsch, MD
	Print Name:	 	 	 		 	Print Name:	 	John D. Hirsch, MD
		 		 		 	Title:	 	Co-Chairman SLSP, LC
					
	 	 	 	 		 		 	
	Print Name:	 	 	 		 		 	

  

									
	WITNESSES:	 		 	BUYER:
				
		 		 		 	 CARTER VALIDUS PROPERTIES, LLC, a
 Delaware limited liability company

					
	 	 	/s/    Lisa Drummond	 		 	By:	 	/s/    John E. Carter
	Print Name:	 	Lisa Drummond	 		 	Print Name:	 	John E. Carter
		 		 		 	Title:	 	Manager
					
	 	 	/s/    Lisa Collado	 		 		 	
	Print Name:	 	Lisa Collado	 		 		 	


  
 -2-
#### Julia B. RADFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 11335.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 1939.

Forest P. Tralles and Fred J. Hoffmeister, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo., Herbert H. Freer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Andrew D. Sharpe and Leon F. Cooper, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal, Brown v. United States, 21 F.Supp. 214, dismissed at cost of appellant, per stipulation of party.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 20178 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DANG HAI NGUYEN, also known as Cong Chi Le,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13 -CR- 303 -1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Dang Hai Nguyen has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Nguyen has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Nguyen ’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 27, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-20178 Document: 00513926731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2017No. 16

- 20178

2 collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 ). The motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998)

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Nguyen ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 16-20178 Document: 00513926731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2017
PABLO PERHACS 

Pablo Perhacs has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State 

Bar of Montana after having been on senior status since April 2019. 

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of 

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of Montana. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, 

Petitioner shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal Education, P.O. Box 577, Helena, 

MT 59624, proof of attendance at thirty hours of approved Continuing Legal Education to 

be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State 

B ar of Montana. 

DATED this ' k day of October, 2022. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice