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

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
Note - EPS information has been prepared in accordance with Statement
of Financial Accounting Standard No. 128, and basic and diluted EPS have been
entered in place of primary and fully diluted, respectively.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUL-2-1999
<CASH>                                            49959
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     80262
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       66073
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 208458
<PP&E>                                           150236
<DEPRECIATION>                                    64664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   343196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             96276
<BONDS>                                           49552
<COMMON>                                           2026
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       189008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     343196
<SALES>                                          253087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 253087
<CGS>                                            174920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    174920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   25249
<INCOME-TAX>                                       6238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               19011
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      19011
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.17


</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Martin, 2021-Ohio-1632.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

CASE NO. 2020-P-0084 

 -vs- : 

ARLEN CHARLES MARTIN, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Municipal Court, Kent Division, Case No. 

2019 CRB 01810 R. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant 

Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

James R. Eskridge, Megargel & Eskridge Co., L.P.A., 231 South Chestnut Street, 

Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Defendant-Appellant). 

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J. 

{¶1} This matter is before this court upon appellee’s April 5, 2021 motion to 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. No response in opposition to the motion has 

been filed. 

{¶2} On December 5, 2019, appellant entered a plea of no contest and was 

found guilty of assault. Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea on June 18, 2020, 

which was denied on August 7, 2020. The trial court issued a sentencing judgment on 

October 9, 2020. 
 2

{¶3} Appellee contends that the October 9, 2020 entry is not a final appealable 

order because it does not contain the fact of conviction. 

{¶4} “A judgment of conviction shall set forth the fact of conviction and the 

sentence.” Crim.R. 32(C). There is no final appealable order unless the fact of 

conviction and the sentence are stated in a single judgment. State v. Sullivan, 11th 

Dist. Lake Nos. 2019-L-004 and 2019-L-005, 2019-Ohio-4413; State v. Lusane, 11th 

Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0027, 2019-Ohio-3549, ¶ 5, citing State v. Lester, 130 Ohio 

St.3d 303; 2011-Ohio-5204, at paragraph one of the syllabus. 

{¶5} Because the October 9, 2020 entry does not restate the fact of conviction, 

appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted. 

{¶6} Appeal dismissed. 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.01** 

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of Swank, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), the undersigned each hereby certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 14, 2009 |   | /s/ John Tulin                                            |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | John Tulin, Chief Executive Officer                       |
|                   |   |                                                      |
|                   |   |                                                      |
| Dated: August 14, 2009 |   | /s/ Jerold R. Kassner                                     |
|                   |   | Jerold R. Kassner, Executive Vice President and Treasurer |
|                   |   | (Chief Financial Officer)                                 |

 

 

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

 

22
#### NATIONAL AID LIFE ASSUR. CO. v. ISBELL.

No. 2531.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Jan. 25, 1946.

Chrestman, Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & Bateman, of Dallas, for appellant.

Williamson & Nordyke, of Stephenville, for appellee.

GRISSOM, Chief Justice.

Phoebe Isbell sued National Aid Life Assurance Company on an insurance policy issued to Mary Lou Beauchamp in which Phoebe Isbell was the beneficiary. Judgment was rendered for Mrs. Isbell for $1,200. The Insurance Company has appealed.

Mrs. Isbell alleged that by the terms of the policy the life of Mary Lou Beau-champ was insured in the amount of $1,-000; that upon her. death the policy became a liquidated demand in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000; that plaintiff made demand for the payment of $1,- - 000; that defendant offered to pay $333.-35; that, therefore, plaintiff was entitled to a judgment in the sum of $1,000, plus a penalty of 20 per cent. Appellant answered that the terms of the policy fixed appellant’s liability at $333.35, which amount it had tendered to appellee and that she refused to accept it. Said amount was tendered into court and appellant prayed that judgment be rendered for $333.35. Appellant further alleged that it was a foreign life insurance association, duly licensed to do business' in Texas under Chapter 5, Title 78, R.S., Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 4781 et seq., and that it was not liable for statutory attorney’s fees or subject to other provisions of Chapter 3, Title 78, R.S., Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 4716 et seq.

The policy does not provide on its face that upon the death of the assured it will pay to the beneficiary the sum of $1,000. It contains no provision for a mode of settlement at maturity of less value than the amounts insured on the face of the policy. It, therefore, is not violative of Sec. 3, Art. 4733. On its face the policy provides that appellant will pay “a sum of money as hereinafter stipulated, not to exceed $1,000.00 * * This was not a promise to pay $1,000. It was only a promise to pay an amount thereafter stipulated, not to exceed $1,000, which, as applied to the deceased at the age of 76, at which age she died, was $333.35. It is undisputed that said sum has been continuously tendered by appellant s'ince the claim was presented. Since appellant has always offered to pay all it owed appellee, to wit $333.35, and appellee has refused to accept it, there is no basis *799for a judgment for a penalty. The judgment is reformed so as to allow a recovery by appellee of only $333.35. All costs are taxed against appellee. As so reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**

HonorableL R. Thom;lson county Auditor Taylor County 'hbileno,

Texas Dear sir: Opinion No. 04968 Her I8 it lo& for the County &wlltor to leous a warrant to tlls County Tax A8sessQrColleato*&u paymnt ol aoilaage

Wand from Auntin on burrirur9i

oonneotodrith his **orrice,** and a related question?
Your letter of September11, 1941, requn&Ang an opinion of this **depnrtsesnt,** reada in part a@ follows:

"18 It legel tar the aouaty audLtor to issue a warrant tn the county tax asremsorcolleator in payment of railerg to and from Austin on buaineaeaonneated with him offloe? Y3ueh a,

bill har been presented to me ati I want your opinion before lesulng euah **warrant.** wAlao, ia it legal to Iraue the tax aseessor-aolleotor a rmrrant in payxtent for mllea:..;e

**used** in collseting bad checks?" mie county offlalaleof Taylor Coutltg ore cgtensated for their esrviaeson an annual salcry baste. - tioh b of Article 3899 Vrrnon'sAnnotatedCivil Statuterr, providesthat euch offIce-ra re empoweredand pellfiitted to ;;urohase

and hrve charged to t~heir reepeativeeotitiee all reasonablaexpansesnecessaryin the pro;rer enll legal oonCuct of thir respective0:floes 88 authorizedby said statiBooorabLLr L. R. Thou&son,Page 2

ute. This de~art;rent hae reaeetedly**mled** thst in the abBcmCCI of Q vari::

#i?tatute,

tke Comd3alon8rs~ Court has no authority to allcw eny sum of noney to 1:s members ior tr~.vel.ing

expenees. Thici

tI8partmathas held, ~180, &hat 0 County iRzcge

was not ont:tld to mfleage or expense5 incurre& on trips to kitstin on oEfiaia1bueiness. (Oee opinions Wo. O-EC% and C47Cil cad tke opinionsof thle departient zzentioned

therein.

) **V;S** do :iot

think that Seotionb, kticle ja99, lp ra, authorizesthe Fyment nf nileaae to the County keee80rColleatorof Taxes to and from Au&In, altho~h auoh trip or trip la made on **0sriem** business. Ye fail to find any statute authorlzin&the payment of expensesfor or la oonnaation with either of the above aentlonedtrenmotione. Thoretore, in the absence of such a statute, we respe~~ly an6wec both V of the above stated questions la the negative.

Trueting **th&t the**  **foregoing** fully answer8 your fs- &ry , we are Yours very truly A’lTORliXT

CkSNERhL

OS! TNiAS

hv?tco APPROVEDSEP 23. 1941

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3083 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the operation of 

longer combination vehicles on the Interstate System in Idaho, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 

Mr. SIMPSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to 

the operation of longer combination vehicles on the Interstate System in Idaho, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Idaho Safe and Effi5 cient Vehicle Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLES IN IDAHO. 

7 Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3083 IH

1 ‘‘(j) LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLES IN IDAHO.— 

2 No limit or other prohibition under this section, except 

3 as provided in this subsection, applies to a longer combina4 tion vehicle operating on a segment of the Interstate Sys5 tem in Idaho if such vehicle— 

6 ‘‘(1) has a gross vehicle weight of 129,000 

7 pounds or less; 

8 ‘‘(2) complies with the single axle, tandem axle, 

9 and bridge formula limits set forth in subsection (a); 

10 and 

11 ‘‘(3) is authorized to operate on such segment 

12 under Idaho State law.’’. 

Æ 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2769 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2769

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2013

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To impose a moratorium on conferences held by the Internal Revenue 
                                Service.

    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 ``Stop Playing on Citizens' Cash 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON IRS CONFERENCES.

    The Internal Revenue Service shall not hold any conference until 
the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration submits a report 
to Congress--
            (1) certifying that the Internal Revenue Service has 
        implemented all of the recommendations set out in such 
        Inspector General's report titled ``Review of the August 2010 
        Small Business/Self-Employed Division's Conference in Anaheim, 
        California'', and
            (2) describing such implementation.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.1**Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code(18 U.S.C. §1350), Bernard A. Hausen, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Cardica, Inc. (the“Company”), and Robert Y. Newell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his or her knowledge:**1.** The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2007, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and **2.** The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.**In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 18th day of September,2007.       /s/ Bernard A. Hausen   /s/ Robert Y. Newell         Bernard A. Hausen, M.D., Ph.D   Robert Y. Newell  Chief Executive Officer   Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofCardica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 198 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60652-60653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26153]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation; Proposed Subsequent 
arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement'' 
under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy 
Community (EURATOM).
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the addition of Brazil, 
Kazakhstan, Romania and Ukraine to the list of countries referred to in 
paragraph 2 of the Agreed Minute to the Agreement for Cooperation in 
the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, listing countries eligible to 
receive retransfers under Article 8.1(C)(i) of the Agreement of low 
enriched uranium, non-nuclear material, equipment and source material 
transferred under the Agreement, or receive retransfers of low enriched 
uranium produced through the use of nuclear material or equipment 
transferred under the Agreement, for nuclear fuel cycle activities 
other than the production of high enriched uranium.
    The United States has brought into force new Agreements for 
Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, under the authority 
of Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2160), with Brazil, Kazakhstan, Romania and Ukraine. These four 
countries have also made effective non-proliferation commitments as 
prescribed in paragraph 2 of the Agreed Minute to the U.S.-EURATOM 
Agreement. Accordingly, they are eligible third countries to which 
retransfers may be made.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.


[[Page 60653]]


    For the Department of Energy.
Andrew Bieniawski,
Acting Director, Office of International Policy and Analysis, for Arms 
Control and Nonproliferation, Office of Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 00-26153 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 205 (Monday, October 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27172]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Micro Devices, Inc./ObjectSpace, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 11, 2000, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Micro Devices, 
Inc./ObjectSpace, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, KLA-Tencor Corp., San Jose, CA has acquired the Fab 
Solutions Division of ObjectSpace, Inc., Dallas, TX and has been added 
as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc./
ObjectSpace, Inc. intends to file additional written notification 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On December 19, 1997, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc./ObjectSpace, 
Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the 
Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 24, 1998 (63 FR 
39901).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-27172 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### R. S. LICHTENBERG, DBA White Owl Restaurant, and Richard Lichtenberg, Movants, v. Hoves SLOAN, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 8, 1951.

Jack E. Fisher, David R. Reed, Paducah, for movants.

Roy N. Vance and Terrell, Schultzman & Moore, all of Paducah, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2754 

AN ACT 

To amend the Hobby Protection Act to make unlawful the 

provision of assistance or support in violation of that 

Act, 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 

•HR 2754 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Collectible Coin Pro3 tection Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE OR SUPPORT. 

5 The Hobby Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) in section 2— 

8 (A) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘, or the 

9 sale in commerce’’ after ‘‘distribution in com10 merce’’; 

11 (B) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub12 section (e) and inserting after subsection (c) the 

13 following: 

14 ‘‘(d) PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE OR SUPPORT.—It 

15 shall be a violation of subsection (a) or (b) for a person 

16 to provide substantial assistance or support to any manu17 facturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should 

18 have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is 

19 engaged in any act or practice that violates subsection (a) 

20 or (b).’’; and 

21 (C) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated), 

22 by striking ‘‘and (b)’’ and inserting ‘‘(b), and 

23 (d)’’; 

24 (2) in section 3— 

25 (A) by striking ‘‘If any person’’ and insert26 ing ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If any person’’; 
3 

•HR 2754 EH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘or has an agent’’ and in2 serting ‘‘, has an agent, transacts business, or 

3 wherever venue is proper under section 1391 of 

4 title 28, United States Code’’; and 

5 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(b) TRADEMARK VIOLATIONS.—If the violation of 

7 section 2 (a) or (b) or a rule under section 2(c) also in8 volves unauthorized use of registered trademarks belong9 ing to a collectibles certification service, the owner of such 

10 trademarks shall have, in addition to the remedies pro11 vided in subsection (a), all rights provided under sections 

12 34, 35, and 36 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 

13 1116, 1117, and 1118) for violations of such Act.’’; and 

14 (3) in section 7, by adding at the end the fol15 lowing: 

16 ‘‘(8) The term ‘collectibles certification service’ 

17 means a person recognized by collectors for pro18 viding independent certification that collectible items 

19 are genuine. 

20 ‘‘(9) The term ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ means 

21 the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registra22 tion and protection of trademarks used in commerce, 

23 to carry out the provisions of certain international 
4 

•HR 2754 EH

1 conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 

2 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2754 

AN ACT 

To amend the Hobby Protection Act to make unviolation of that Act, and for other purposes. lawful the provision of assistance or support in