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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                          5,564,557
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,787,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                      223,000
<INVENTORY>                                     3,862,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,035,089
<PP&E>                                         16,158,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,712,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 31,410,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,132,119
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                            16
<COMMON>                                          301,386
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   31,410,784
<SALES>                                        37,308,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               37,308,199
<CGS>                                          20,343,516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,211,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   12,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                221,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,340,210
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,701,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,360,790)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.30)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 2-99511 effective July 18, 1985; File No. 33-32070
effective December 5, 1989; File No. 33-34621 effective May 20, 1990; File No.
33-35368 effective July 1, 1990; File No. 33-35990 effective July 24, 1990; File
No. 33-45351 effective January 28, 1992; File No. 333-70545 effective January
13, 1999) of Minntech Corporation of our report dated May 14, 1999 appearing on
page 41 of this form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 28, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000725813
<NAME> LAURENCE E. RICHARD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4185000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 18014000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   14184000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              39467000
<PP&E>                                        38963000
<DEPRECIATION>                                19009000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                73064000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11274000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        798000
<OTHER-SE>                                    55100000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  73064000
<SALES>                                       61165000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              61165000
<CGS>                                         40987000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 40987000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              12128000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              568000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7482000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2289000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5193000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5193000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
        


</TABLE>
#### Tracy L. FREEMAN, Appellant, v. Nathan CANTERBURY, Appellee.

No. 3826.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

May 25, 1961.

Lewis D. Fisher, Ben H. Grumbles, Houston, for appellant.

Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Houston, S. G. Kolius, Gibson Gayle, Jr., Houston, of counsel, for appellee.

WILSON, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a take-nothing judgment based on a jury verdict in a rear-end automobile collision case. He contends jury findings of unavoidable accident, and which acquit defendant of negligence, are contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.

Rain had caused the street to become slick. Defendant’s car was traveling approximately 25 miles per hour, and upon application of brakes, his automobile skidded into that of plaintiff which was stopped at an intersectibnal traffic light. Having reviewed the evidence, we overrule the points. Another finding as to damages, complained of, thereby becomes immaterial under the record. Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Andrade, 132 Tex. 372, 124 S.W.2d 334, 335; Brown & Root v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624, 180 S.W.2d 339, 342; Thompson v. Robbins, 157 Tex. 463, 304 S.W.2d 111, 117.

Reversal is sought because of a question propounded on cross examination to plaintiff’s wife. She was asked whether she knew that the doctor she consulted concerning her complaints was suspended by the county medical society. She replied in the negative. We find no specific ground of objection to the question. Plaintiff himself later called this doctor as a witness and elicited from him that .at the expiration of a two-year probationary period his application for membership in the society was rejected, and that his application.was again pending for an additional probation*956ary period -which had not then expired. The doctor was asked to state why he had not been accepted for membership; defendant objected that this called for hearsay; the court indicated that an answer— if not based on hearsay — would be admitted, and the interrogation was thereupon abandoned. The record does not show the court excluded the answer, as appellant contends. The evidence to which appellant’s contentions relate, under this record, primarily concern the credibility of this medical witness. His testimony, in turn, is primarily pertinent to the damage issue — an issue which is immaterial under the jury findings. Under the entire record, the points present no reversible error. 1 McCormick and Ray, Evidence, Sec. 27, p. 27; 41-B Tex.Jur., Sec. 151, p. 181; 4 Tex.Jur.2d Sec. 941, p. 575; Sec. 942, p. 578, n. 9.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

The following is a list of the Corporation's subsidiaries as of June 30,
2005. The Corporation owns, directly or indirectly, 100% of the voting
securities of each subsidiary, unless noted otherwise.

                                               STATE OR JURISDICTION
NAME                                              OF ORGANIZATION
----                                           ---------------------

Parlex Dynaflex Corporation                California

Parlex International Corporation           United States Virgin Islands

Poly-Flex Circuits, Inc.*                  Rhode Island

Parlex (Shanghai) Circuit Co., Ltd.**      Shanghai

Parlex Asia Pacific Ltd.                   Hong Kong

Poly-Flex Circuits Limited                 United Kingdom

Parlex (Europe) Limited                    United Kingdom

Parlex (Shanghai) Interconnect             Shanghai
Products, Co., Ltd.

Parlex (Shanghai) Interconnect             Shanghai
Technologies, Ltd.

Parlex Corporation Limited                 United Kingdom

Parlex (China) Investment Limited          British Virgin Islands

Pacific Advanced Interconnect              Hong Kong
Products Ltd.

-------------------
*     Effective July 15, 2005, this entity changed its corporate name to
      Parlex Polymer Flexible Circuits, Inc.
**    90.1% owned by Parlex Corporation


<PAGE>  63
|   | (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 operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 15, 2010                                       |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                       |   |   |   |
| /s/ Ronald Conquest                                        |   |   |   |
|                                                            |   |   |   |
| Ronald ConquestChief Financial OfficerWindGen Energy, Inc. |   |   |   |
|                                                       |   |   |   |

----
EXHIBIT
23.2








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (File Nos. 333-144774, 333-139264, 033-58277, 333-02015, 333-43809,
333-83215, 333-34550, 333-33436, 333-72226, 333-100315, 333-106797, 333-109344,
333-110040 and 333-120262) and Form S-8 (File Nos. Nos. 33-63321, 333-00431,
333-04679, 333-04677, 333-27673, 333-48454, 333-58384, 333-59718, 333-75304,
333-109986 and 333-121320) of Cytogen Corporation of our report dated March 15,
2006 relating to the financial statements of PSMA Development Company LLC, which
appears in this form 10-K.







PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP


New York,
New York


March 13,
2008
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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 Shopping.com
Ltd. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel T. Ciporin, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Dated: May 13, 2005



By:

/s/ Daniel T. CiporinDaniel T. CiporinChief Executive Officer
[No. 35033.

Department Two.

December 17, 1959.]

#### Leo Lipp *et al., Appellants,*v. William E. Zimmerman *et al., Respondents.**1*

*Litchman & Litchman,*for appellants.

*Martin, Shorts & Bever,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 347 P. (2d) 827.

*283Per Curiam.

In this action to recover damages arising from an automobile accident, appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered upon the jury’s verdict for the defendants, respondents here.

The court instructed that the defendant truck driver was negligent as a matter of law, but left it to the jury to decide the conflict of the evidence upon the respondents’ affirmative defense of the appellants’ contributory negligence.

This is the sole error assigned. For this purpose, the evidence and permissible inferences must be considered from the standpoint most favorable to the respondents.

While the respondents’ truck and trailer combination was stopped at the light-controlled intersection waiting for the signal light to change from red to green, appellent driver, who was traveling in the same direction, stopped his car between the trailer and the curb. There was testimony that the space into which appellant driver drew his car was too narrow for reasonable accommodation, and it is undisputed that the truck’s right-turn signal continued flashing from the time the truck stopped. Appellants’ counsel frankly conceded in oral argument that, at the intersection in question, only a right turn was possible. Forward travel was blocked by a bridge, and left-hand turns were prohibited. The jury was entitled to find appellant driver had placed himself in a position of peril so that, when the trailer was turned, his car would be squeezed between the trailer and a utility pole at the curb, and it was proper, therefore, to submit the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.

Affirmed.

February 4, 1960. Petition for rehearing denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40391

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS DE LA ROSA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-1004-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos De La RosaRodriguez 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). De La Rosa-Rodriguez has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40391 Document: 00512991335 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-40391

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-40391 Document: 00512991335 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00265-CR

LUCIOUS NEWHOUSE III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1561061)

August 15, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

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

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
MINNTECH CORPORATION

Second Amendment
to
1998 Stock Option Plan

This Second Amendment (this "Amendment") is dated as of March 28, 2001, and is made to the Minntech Corporation 1998 Stock Option Plan, dated as of
March 24, 1998, as amended by the first amendment thereto dated September 30, 1998 (as so amended, the "Plan").

The
Board of Directors of Minntech Corporation, acting pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Plan, hereby amends the Plan as follows:

1.Authorized Shares.Paragraph 3 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:



2.Non-Employee Directors.Paragraph 6 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:



---



3.Defined TermsGeneral.All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment have the meanings given them in the
Plan. All references in the Plan to "this Plan" mean the Plan as amended by this Amendment.

4.Continuing Effect.Except as modified by this Amendment, the Plan remains in full force and effect, without change.

2

---
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 62

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the restriction

that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker provide services

in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility to a patient only

under the care of a physician, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove

the restriction that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility to a patient only under

the care of a physician, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 62 IS

1 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A CLINICAL

2 PSYCHOLOGIST OR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK3 ER PROVIDE SERVICES IN A COMPREHEN4 SIVE OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION FACIL5 ITY TO A PATIENT ONLY UNDER THE CARE

6 OF A PHYSICIAN.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the So8 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended

9 by inserting before the semicolon ‘‘(except with respect to

10 services provided by a clinical psychologist or a clinical so11 cial worker)’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

13 subsection (a) shall become effective with respect to serv14 ices provided on or after January 1, 1996.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 468 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 137
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 468

                          [Report No. 104-104]

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
    construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 23 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

 Mr. Glenn (for himself and Mr. DeWine) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

              Reported by Mr. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
    construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other 
                               purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 9423, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee for 
the project, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and 
public interest requirements of that section and the Commission's 
procedures under that section, extend the time period during which the 
licensee is required to commence the construction of the project, under 
the extension described in subsection (b), for not more than 3 
consecutive 2-year periods.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the date of 
the expiration of the extension of the period required for commencement 
of construction of the project described in subsection (a) that the 
Commission issued, prior to the date of enactment of this Act, under 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

                                                       Calendar No. 137

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 468

                          [Report No. 104-104]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
    construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

                      Reported without amendment
```
Supplemental Assignment Agreement



 Exhibit 4.40 
  
 This Supplemental Assignment Agreement is made on May 14, 2004 between: 
  

	(1)	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES INC., a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of China (the “Assignor”); and 

  

	(2)	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD., a company organized under the laws of Bermuda (the “Assignee”). 

  
 Whereas 
  

	(A)	The Assignor and the Assignee have entered into the Assignment Agreement dated as of April 17, 2004 (the “Assignment Assignment”), pursuant to which the Assignor
transferred the Technologies it owned to the Assignee. 

  

	(B)	This Supplemental Assignment Agreement is supplemental to the Assignment Agreement. 

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows: 
  

	1	Definitions 

  
 Capitalised terms used in this Supplemental Assignment Agreement but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Assignment Agreement.

  

	2	Incorporation by Reference 

  
 Except as otherwise provided herein, the terms of the Assignment Agreement shall apply to this Supplemental Assignment Agreement as if they were set out
herein and the Assignment Agreement shall be read and construed as one document with this Supplemental Assignment Agreement. 
  

	3	Amendment to Assignment Agreement 

  
 Article 3 of the Assignment Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following: 
  
 “The Assignee hereby agrees and covenants to pay to the Assignor on September 30, 2004 the aggregate purchase price of
the Technologies of US$19.7 million in immediately available funds by wire transfer to a bank account or accounts designated by the Assignor.” 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Supplemental Assignment Agreement has been executed as of the day and year first above
set forth. 
  

			
	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Shih-Jye Cheng


	 Name:
	 	 Shih-Jye Cheng

	 Title:
	 	 Chairman

	
	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Hung-Chiu Hu


	 Name:
	 	 Hung-Chiu Hu

	 Title:
	 	 Chairman


  

 - 2 -