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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FROM THE
DECEMBER 31, 1998 FROM 10-K REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,409,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,439,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,848,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             142,942,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,335,000
<BONDS>                                     13,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       321,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  87,517,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               142,942,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,873,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,468,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,847,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,083,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,475,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   243,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,232,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,232,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1657 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concern owned and controlled 

by veterans or as a small business concern owned and 

controlled by service-disabled veterans. 

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


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1657 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EN2 FORCEMENT PENALTIES FOR MISREPRESEN3 TATION OF A BUSINESS CONCERN AS A 

4 SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN OWNED AND 

5 CONTROLLED BY VETERANS OR AS A SMALL 

6 BUSINESS CONCERN OWNED AND CON7 TROLLED BY SERVICE-DISABLED VETERANS. 

8 Subsection (g) of section 8127 of title 38, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘Any business’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘(1) Any business’’; 

12 (2) by striking ‘‘a reasonable period of time, as 

13 determined by the Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘a pe14 riod of not less than five years’’; and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

16 paragraphs: 

17 ‘‘(2) In the case of a debarment under paragraph (1), 

18 the Secretary shall commence debarment action against 

19 the business concern by not later than 30 days after deter20 mining that the concern misrepresented the status of the 

21 concern as described in paragraph (1) and shall complete 

22 debarment actions against such concern by not later than 

23 90 days after such determination. 

24 ‘‘(3) The debarment of a business concern under 

25 paragraph (1) includes the debarment of all principals in 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1657 RFS 

1 the business concern for a period of not less than five 

2 years.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2011. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
| **Consolidated Statements Of Cash Flow (Parenthetical) - USD ($) $ in Thousands** | 3 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Consolidated Statements Of Cash Flow [Abstract]**                               |           |   |
| Debt component of allowance for funds used during construction                    | $ 580          | $ 296 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfCashFlowsAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Debt component of allowance for funds used during construction
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**wtr_DebtComponentOfAllowanceForFundsUsedDuringConstruction**Namespace Prefix:**wtr_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We have issued our report dated February 27, 2004, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule of TheCoast Distribution System, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Company’sRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-10769, 33-15322, 33-18696, 33-64582, 333-55933, 333-55941 and 333-52876). 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 29, 2004
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Tofutti Brands Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-72654, 333-48605 and 333-79567) on Form S-8 of Tofutti Brands Inc. of
our report dated March 18, 2003, relating to the balance sheets of Tofutti
Brands Inc. as of December 28, 2002 and December 29, 2001 and the related
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
years then ended, which report appears in the December 28, 2002 Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of Tofutti Brands Inc.

                               /s/ Wiss & Company

                               WISS & COMPANY, LLP

Livingston, New Jersey
March 27, 2003
Motion Granted in Part and Denied as Moot in Part; Order filed October 29, 

2019. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00486-CV

____________

IN RE ALEX MELVIN WADE, JR., Relator

____________

NO. 14-18-00487-CV

____________

ALEX MELVIN WADE, JR., Appellant

V.

BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-39002

ORDER

On October 10, 2019, appellant filed a motion to recall the mandate in these 

consolidated proceedings on the ground that he did not receive notice of this court’s 
2

opinion and judgment issued July 23, 2019. Appellant’s motion is granted in cause 

number 14-18-00487-CV, the appeal in these proceedings. Because no mandate 

issued in cause number 14-18-00486-CV, appellant’s motion is denied as moot. 

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due in this court on or before November 

8, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot. (Chief Justice 

Frost would deny the motion).
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004). 

NO. 07-02-0511-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

FEBRUARY 5, 2004

______________________________

DULCES NOMBRES BALDERRAMA AKA

DULCES N. BALDERRAMA, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;

NO. 4844; HON. KELLY G. MOORE, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presenting one issue which, he posits, requires reversal, appellant Dulces Nombres

Balderrama challenges his conviction of felony grade driving while intoxicated. Appellant

pled guilty to the offense, but requested the jury to assess his punishment. After hearing
2

evidence, the jury assessed his punishment at eight years confinement in the Institutional

Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. In his sole issue, appellant contends the

trial court erred in ruling that a defense witness could not testify that he (appellant) had

been sentenced to four years penal confinement because of a revocation of probation in

Andrews County heretofore granted him. Disagreeing that reversal is required, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

In relevant part, the record shows the following colloquy that took place in the

absence of the jury:

The Court: Okay. I have Shawn Bockleman . . . who’s going to be the

Defense’s next witness. And Mr. Bockleman, I just want you to know that

since -- it’s my understanding on representation from Mr. Martinez that Mr.

Balderrama’s probation in Andrews County was revoked by order of the

judge and that he’s sentenced to serve four years in prison, but that has been

appealed and that Mr. Balderrama is out on bond on that matter. Under the

law and for the purposes of this case then it’s just as if there had been no

revokation [sic]. And so I’ve ruled in this case that the fact that a revokation

[sic] order has been entered by the judge or that he’s been sentenced to any

penitentiary time would not be mentioned since it’s on appeal. Okay?

The Witness: Okay

The Court: I think that should cover the circumstances.

The record does not show any objection to the ruling of the court.

Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure specifically requires that to

preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complaining party must make a “timely

request, objection, or motion” with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the

complaint. See also Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360, 365-66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), cert.
3

denied, 490 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1972, 104 L.Ed.2d 441 (1989); Zillender v. State, 557

S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).

Because of the lack of a trial objection, there is nothing preserved for appellate

review. Accordingly, appellant’s issue does not present reversible error, and it is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

John T. Boyd

Senior Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit 10 (b)

                              AMENDMENT NO. 4
                                  TO THE
                          INTERPHASE CORPORATION
                  AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK OPTION PLAN


       Pursuant to Section 17 of  the Interphase Corporation Amended  and

  Restated Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended  as

  follows:

       1.   Section 5  of the  Plan  is hereby  amended  to read  in  its

            entirety as follows:

            5.   SHARES SUBJECT  TO  PLAN.     The Board  may  not  grant
            options under  the Plan  for more  than 3,500,000  shares  of
            Common Stock of the Company, but this number may be  adjusted
            to reflect, if  deemed appropriate  by the  Board, any  stock
            dividend, stock split, share combination, recapitalization or
            the like, of or  by the Company.   Shares to be optioned  and
            sold  may  be  made  available  from  either  authorized  but
            unissued Common Stock or Common Stock held by the Company  in
            its treasury.  Shares that by reason of the expiration of  an
            option  or  otherwise  are  no  longer  subject  to  purchase
            pursuant to an option granted under the Plan may be reoffered
            under the Plan.


       IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned has  executed this  Amendment

  effective as of the 19th day of January, 2000.



                                     INTERPHASE CORPORATION

                                     By:
                                        ----------------------------
                                        Gregory B. Kalush, President
Exhibit 32.1   IDI Global, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  In connection with the Quarterly Report of IDI Global, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kevin R. Griffith, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Weatherly, a consultant performing certain services for the Company commonly provided by a Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:    1. the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: November 17, 2006 /s/ Kevin R. Griffith Kevin R. Griffith Chief Executive Officer     Date: November 17, 2006 /s/ Steven D. Weatherly Steven D. Weatherly Consultant performing certain services for the Company commonly performed by a 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 report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2010 of eRoomSystem Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David A.
Gestetner, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chairman of the
Board of the Registrant, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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








Date:
      August 16, 2010By:
              /s/
      David A. GestetnerName:
              David
      A. GestetnerTitle:
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer,
                Secretary,and
      Chairman of the Board(Principal
      Executive, Financial,and
      Accounting Officer)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order Lansing, Michigan June 8, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 133934 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan

_____________ _______________ ____________ Robert P. Young, Jr. IN RE JESSE JAMES LUCKING, Minor. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

_____________ _______________ ____________ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 133934 COA: 273762 Oakland CC JAMES MICHAEL LUCKING, Respondent-Appellant, Family Division: 05-704707-NA

and HOLLY MARIE WALTERS, Respondent.

________________ _______________ __________/ On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0605 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. June 8, 2007 Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 2, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10464 Summary Calendar FAUSTINO RAMOS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DALLAS TX; U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION; U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, WASHINGTON, D.C., Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:05-CV-476) Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Faustino Ramos appeals the denial of a temporary restraining order (TRO), seeking to enjoin the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from detaining him and removing him from the United States pending a decision on his adjustment-of-status application. Although his notice of appeal states he is also appealing the denial of his petition for a writ2

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the district court did not rule on that petition. Therefore, only the TRO-denial is at issue. We lack jurisdiction over a TRO-denial because the ruling does not qualify as an “injunction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Faulder v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir.) (“[I]t is well settled that this court has no appellate jurisdiction over the denial of an application for a temporary restraining order”.) (citing In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990)), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1018 (1999). On the other hand, the denial of a preliminary injunction is ordinarily appealable immediately. See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). Construing the district court’s order as the denial of a preliminary injunction, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), the motion was properly denied. See United States v. Wood, 295 F.2d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 1961) (construing the denial of a TRO as a final order for appealability purposes in order to preserve determination of the parties’ substantial rights), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 850 (1962). An injunction-denial will be reversed only on showing the district court abused its discretion. Lakedreams, 932 F.2d at 1107. As the district court reasoned in denying relief, Ramos did not show a substantial threat that failure to enjoin his detention would result in irreparable injury. Nor did he show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, brought under 283

U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention and removal as unlawful. Cf. Cardoso v. Reno, 216 F.3d 512, 516-17 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming dismissal of action for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) by plaintiff subject to removal order and seeking adjustment of status to avoid removal order). AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1   Wings & Things, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Wings & Things, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  b. the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: November 8, 2006 /s/ Linda L. Perry Linda L. Perry Principal Executive officer Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 10.1

PARENTAL GUARANTEE

The undersigned Primary Licensee, RightCHOICE Managed Care,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, hereby certifies that it
guarantees to the full extent of its assets, all of the
contractual and financial obligations of the Controlled
Affiliate Licensees, Healthy Alliance Life Insurance Company
and HMO Missouri Inc., to their customers.

"Primary Licensee"


/s/  John A. O'Rourke                   March 26, 2001
John A. O'Rourke                        Date
Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc.
A Delaware Corporation


"Controlled Affiliate Licensees"


/s/  John A. O'Rourke                   March 26, 2001
John A. O'Rourke                        Date
President
HMO Missouri, Inc.
A Missouri Corporation


/s/  John A. O'Rourke                   March 26, 2001
John A. O'Rourke                        Date
President
Healthy Alliance Life Insurance Company
A Missouri Corporation