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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         (119331)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3121324
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    6825615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              13119944
<PP&E>                                        22363297
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2108356 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                37609210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11540057
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       2500000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    13083433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  37609210
<SALES>                                       12290238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12567073
<CGS>                                         11370015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 12699423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                568531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              760877
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (132350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   ( 50293)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            ( 82057)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   ( 82057)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (   .03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (   .03)
        

</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Kenneth Leo Buholtz

No. 06

- 17

- 00098

- CV Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss,

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in t he Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Therefore, we deny the petition

.

RENDERED OCTOBER 17, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```

                                                              EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Melvyn Knigin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Movie Star, 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) [intentionally omitted];

         (c) 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

         (d) 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 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.

Date: May 11, 2005

                                  /s/ Melvyn Knigin
                                  -----------------------------------
                                  Melvyn Knigin
                                  Chief Executive Officer
```
EXHIBIT 31.b
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Roger U. Wellington, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The L.S. Starrett
Company;

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) [Intentionally Omitted]
(c) 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
(d) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial report;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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;

(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.


Date:  November 7, 2003                /s/  Roger U. Wellington, Jr.
                                        Roger U. Wellington, Jr.
                                        Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7935

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT JEROME WARREN, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph R. Goodwin, District

Judge; Maurice G. Taylor, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CR-95-147, CA97-956-3)

Submitted: January 16, 2002 Decided: February 4, 2002

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Jerome Warren, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Jerome Warren, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on

the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Warren,

Nos. CR-95-147; CA-97-956-3 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### MAJORS v. STATE.

No. 24843.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 21, 1950.

*426No appearance for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor in such county, a dry area, and fined the sum of $100.00, and he appeals.

On or about the 26th day of August, 1949, Ed Hofacket and R. H. Kennedy, police officers, armed with a search warrant, searched the premises of the appellant for intoxicating liquors. They -found one pint of whisky,-two cases of beer, and ten cans of beer. The pint of whisky was found over a clothes closet under some clothes. The ten cans of beer were in the ice box, and two cases of beer were up in the attic. The whisky was found in the living room.

The “dryness” of the area where the liquor was possessed seems to have been amply established by the testimony.

The court’s charge upon which the case was submitted to the jury appears to have been entirely satisfactory to the appellant, no objection appearing in the record as to such charge, and no special requested charges having been asked for.

Bill No. 1 complains that when the Policeman Kennedy was testifying on cross-examination, defense counsel asked him, “Mr. Kennedy, state to the jury in your opinion how long ten cans of cold beer would last in the business where it was being sold. In other words, was that a pretty cold stock, or do you think he should have had more than ten cans cold if he was selling beer there at these premises?” State’s counsel objected to the question on the ground that it was opinion evidence, and the court sustained the objection. This bill goes to the refusal of the trial court to permit the witness to answer the question. In the first place, we see no materiality in such question; and again, the bill is insufficient in that nowhere therein is it shown what the answer of the witness would have been had he been allowed to give his opinion. Authorities are so numerous that they need not be mentioned.

Bill No. 2 relates to the introduction of the fruits of the search of appellant’s premises because of certain claimed defects in su-ch warrant. We think the court’s qualification disposes of-any such defects, if such there be, because it is shown that both appellant and his wife testified to the possession of all the intoxicating *427liquor found in their home, claiming that they were rather heavy beer drinkers and had same for their own personal use. See 4 Tex.Jur., p. 586, sec. 414, et seq.

Bill No. 4 seems to have occurred during the cross-examination of appellant’s wife, who testified: “We’ve never sold any beer before this offense.” Whereupon the county attorney said, “That is, before”, and immediately appellant moved for a dismissal of the case. The trial court sustained appellant’s objection to the remark of the county attorney and instructed the jury not to consider the question of the county attorney for any purpose. We see no error shown therein.

Finding no reversible error shown in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5738 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

15285 Samohin Drive in Macomb, Michigan, as the ‘‘Lance Cpl. Anthony 

A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2012 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan (for herself, Mr. CAMP, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. 

WALBERG, Mr. CLARKE of Michigan, and Mr. PETERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 15285 Samohin Drive in Macomb, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb 

Carrier Annex’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LANCE CPL. ANTHONY A. DILISIO CLINTON4 MACOMB CARRIER ANNEX. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 15285 Samohin Drive in 

7 Macomb, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5738 IH

1 ‘‘Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier 

2 Annex’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Cpl. Anthony 

7 A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN** 

!:on. 5. B. Fwohir,soa coufity Xudltor Powis CouAtp ?JOdiOA,

%UEm

OpinloA NO. O-7336 A

Toter lettea date4 Baa

Tosea Ranger **forass** and tha **ji.triw0ti0n** and **00tm0i 0r**  department of the Stata northat Sire6 aa6 providedby the 

### ationbill, 8. 3. 317, ah. 378,

on or thu lorsgol~ bill tll~~olosssappmprl**t of**  **?ublio ‘** **hi&y for**  **the bimalum**  ending 1~~~al~rlsrr

and, In addition,aontalnlng apthe mein or haadpuartom dlvlrlon at the bepartrrrent,

limluding the Toran Ruqora, cr~uthorimd tar travel an6 tranapo

rtetion oxpmuwa , aatolPoblla mmlntenanoe,portago, ~upplles, contingent,etc., rfd any other **AbOW8~ry** aepal%lmnt oxp*Ases, inoludlng equSpmant. **tikewi8a,,** amounta (~$8 appmprlated for the Texas H~RI~.NBS

?etrol ?lvlslon **for aslarlts**  and subatantlallythe mum auth**orlzei:** eqmnsea.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 561 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the work opportunity 

tax credit with respect to veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2011 

Mr. WELCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the work opportunity tax credit with respect to veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Employment 

5 Tax Credit Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT 

7 FOR VETERANS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

9 51(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 561 IH

1 by inserting ‘‘(in the case of a qualified veteran, December 

2 31, 2014)’’ before the period at the end. 

3 (b) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN UNEMPLOYED VET4 ERANS.—Subparagraph (A) of section 51(d)(14) of such 

5 Code is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘unemployed veteran or’’, and 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘, any unemployed veteran who 

8 begins work for the employer during 2009, 2010, 

9 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014,’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

11 (1) SUBSECTION (a).—The amendment made 

12 by subsection (a) shall apply to individuals who 

13 begin work for the employer after December 31, 

14 2011. 

15 (2) SUBSECTION (b).—The amendments made 

16 by subsection (b) shall apply to individuals who 

17 begin work for the employer after December 31, 

18 2010. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit  32


                              Certification
  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
   and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of The  L.S. Starrett Company,  a Massachusetts
corporation  (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 25, 2004 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and  information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  November 4, 2004                     /s/ Douglas A. Starrett
	                                      Douglas A. Starrett
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Date:  November 4, 2004                     /s/ Roger U. Wellington, Jr.
                                            Roger U. Wellington, Jr.
                                            Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United  States Code) and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The L.S. Starrett Company and will be retained by The L.S.
Starrett Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
From: Chuck French [French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 6:24 PM

To: Chuck French

Cc: Higgins, Cortney; Ann Johnson; Mark Morris; Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov; Phil 

Mulrine; Robin Langdon; Tom Walton; Hancy, Cindy Wang; Erin Newman; Jan Tierney; 

Kelly Rimer; Marinshaw, Richard; Sara Ayres; Steve Fruh; Tim Benner

Subject: Re: EO 13563 Interagency Comments on Chromium RTR

Attachments: E O 12866 CromiumElectroplatingSteelPickling 2060-AQ60P Promulgation-8-10-2012-

epa-edits.docx; E O 12866 CromiumElectroplatingSteelPickling 2060-AQ60P 

Promulgation-8-10-2012-revised-clean.docx

Hi Cortney, 

We made edits to the preamble/rule to address comments we discussed on 8/8/2012. Attached is a 

revised preamble and rule. One version shows changes in "track changes", the other is a clean version. 

Let me know if you have questions. 

Thanks. 

Chuck French 

Phone: 919-541-7912 

(See attached file: E O 12866 CromiumElectroplatingSteelPickling 2060-AQ60P Promulgation-8-

10-2012-epa-edits.docx)(See attached file: E O 12866 CromiumElectroplatingSteelPickling 2060-

AQ60P Promulgation-8-10-2012-revised-clean.docx)
1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL DEWANE GEISE, and )

BRANDI JOYCE GEISE, his wife

, )

)

Plaintiff s

, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. N23C

- 03

- 003 MMJ

)

BEEBE HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a )

BEEBE HEALTHCARE (FAMILY )

PRACTICE AT BEACON). )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Submitted: April 14, 2023

Decided: May 10, 2023

Upon Defendant Beebe Healthcare, Inc.’s

Request to Determine if the Affidavit of Merit

Complies with 18 Del. C. §§ 6853(a)(1) and (c)

Section 6853 (a)(1) of title 18 of the Delaware Code provides that all

healthcare negligence complaints must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit as

to each defendant signed by an expert witness, accompanied by a current curriculum

vitae of the witness

, stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there

has been healthcare medical negligence committed by each defendant.

In this case, the affidavit of merit was filed under seal, as required. Pursuant

to 18 Del. C. § 6853(d), Defendant req uested in camera review of the affidavit to2

determine compliance with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c). The Court has reviewed the

affidavit of merit and the accompanying curriculum vitae. The Court finds:

1. The affidavit is signed by an expert witness.

2

. The affidavit is accompanied by a current curriculum vitae

.

3. The affidavit sets forth the expert’s opinion that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that the applicable standard of care was breached by each named

defendant.

4. The affidavit sets f orth the expert’s opinion that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that specifically enumerated breaches by each defendant

proximately caused the injuries claimed in the complaint.

5. The expert witness was licensed to practice medicine as of the dat e of

the affidavit.

6. In the 3 years immediately preceding the alleged negligent act, the

expert witness was engaged in the treatment of patients and/or in the

teaching/academic side of medicine in the fields of Internal Medicine, Hematology

and Medical Oncology.

7. The expert witness is board

- certified in Internal Medicine, Hematology

and Medical Oncology.

THEREFORE, the Court having reviewed in camera the affidavit of merit

and accompanying curriculum vitae of plaintiff’s expert witness, the Court f inds that3

the affidavit of merit complies with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c) of title 18 of the

Delaware Code.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary M. Johnston

The Honorable Mary M. Johnston