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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          17,553                  17,553
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,559                 115,559
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,478)                 (1,478)
<INVENTORY>                                     45,168                  45,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               220,272                 220,272
<PP&E>                                         340,591                 340,591
<DEPRECIATION>                               (135,733)               (135,733)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 431,301                 431,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          229,365                 229,365
<BONDS>                                         71,302                  71,302
<COMMON>                                        10,887                  10,887
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,852                  85,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   431,301                 431,301
<SALES>                                        178,116                 521,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,116                 521,401
<CGS>                                           61,288                 175,020
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,288                 175,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                      97
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,536                   7,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,934                 103,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,228                  40,588
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,706                  62,565
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,706                  62,565
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .73                    1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73                    1.71
        

</TABLE>
#### BYERS v. STATE.

No. 26439.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1953.

William C. McDonald, San Angelo, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant is the same person as the appellant in our Cause No. 26,337, also appealed from the County Court of Runnels County and this day decided, 259 S.W.2d 193.

This also is an appeal from a conviction for driving while intoxicated, a jury at the same term of said County Court having assessed appellant’s punishment at a fine of $400.

Some of the contentions here made were disposed of in our opinion in Cause No. 26,-337 and will not be further discussed.

On January 19, 1953, appellant was tried before a. jury selected from a panel of 14 jurors, and was convicted and fined $100, and on January 22, 1953, this case was called for trial and a jury selected from the same panel of 14. Appellant complains that his motion to quash, the jury panel was overruled.

Those jurors who did not serve on the first trial were not disqualified as jurors because of their being on the panel. Appellant’s motion to quash the panel was therefore properly overruled.

Though in his brief he complains that three of the jurors who convicted him in the first trial also served on the jury in-this case, we do not find that appellant challenged these jurors for cause or otherwise excepted to the court’s action in refusing to excuse such jurors because of their having served and convicted appellant in the other case the same week.

In any event, under the facts here, the jurors who served in the former case were not disqualified. The two cases against appellant were in no way related. Different transactions were involved, with different witnesses, and the time and place of the offenses were different.

In the case here appealed, the offense was proved by testimony of State Highway-Patrolmen to have occurred on a Runnels County highway on September 13, 1952. The offense in the first trial was proved by testimony of City Police to have been committed in the City of Ballinger on September 7, 1952.

The record shows that all members of the jury panel knew of the result of the first trial, and each declared that such would not influence him in the present trial.

The rule applicable to the members of the panel who served on the first jury may be found in Branch’s Ann.P.C. Sec. 558:

> *197“The fact that jurors had convicted defendant in another case based on a transaction occurring between different parties than those involved in the case on trial is not of itself a ground of challenge for cause. Arnold v. State, 38 Tex.Cr.R. 1; 40 S.W. 734. Edgar v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 252, 255; 127 S.W. 1053, 1054.” See also Stephens v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 551, 132 S.W.2d 878.

The evidence sustains the conviction and its sufficiency is not questioned.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
#### WOOD v. STATE.

No. 24251.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1949.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal March 16, 1949.

*481Mike Anglin and Oscar B. Jones, both of Longview, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Wood County to the offense of unlawfully transporting an illicit alcohol beverage, to-wit, whisky, in a container to which no tax stamp was affixed showing the payment of such tax due the State of Texas, etc., and his fine was fixed at the sum of $250.00.

Appellant filed a motion on May 5, 1948, requesting the Court “to set aside the verdict of guilty against him and grant him a new trial herein for the reason the same is contrary to the law and the evidence herein.”

On the 8th day of May, 1948, appellant entered into a recognizance in the sum of $750.0C.

No notice of appeal appears in the record except a page evidently taken from the county judge’s trial docket, the notation therein being as follows:

“5-7-48. Defendant’s motion for new trial overruled. Defendant excepts and gives notice of appeal to Court of Criminal Appeals, Austin, Texas, and requests reasonable bond.”

The record contains no minute nor order relative to such notice of appeal. The statute, Art. 827, C.C.P., provides that such notice shall be given in open court and entered of record. A notation on the trial docket is not a sufficient record of such notice. See cases cited in Vernon’s Ann.Tex. C.C.P., Vol. 3, under Note 4 of Art. 827, supra; also under same note in Annual Pocket Part. See also cases cited in Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 479.

No notice of appeal being shown herein, the appeal is dismissed.

On Reinstatement of Appeal.

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is a companion case to that of Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 479, wherein we dismissed the appeal as stated therein; and for the same reasons, the appeal was dismissed in this case.

Appellant filed a motion to retin-state the appeal accompanied by a supplemental transcript showing that he is entitled to have his appeal re-instated and the case considered on the question presented for review. Therefore, the motion to reinstate the appeal is granted and the appeal is re-instated. In this case as in that, appellant contends that he was deprived of his bills of exception without fault or negligence on his part. The facts showing this matter are the same in both cases. For the reasons stated in reversing and remanding the case of Hughes v. State, this case is reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT
32.B









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 for the period ending
March 31, 2008, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the “Company”) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John R. Sult, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller,
certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
   
  Date:  May
      9, 2008
              
              /s/ John
      R. SultJohn
      R. SultSenior
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)Tennessee
      Gas Pipeline Company
  
        A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00175

- CR

MANUEL PENA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2009

- CR

- 1438

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 25, 2015
| Subsidiaries’      or Affiliate’s Name                                                                     | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation or Organization | Percentage      of Ownership       |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Bodisen      Holdings, Inc. (“BHI”)                                                                   | Delaware                                           | 100%      by Bodisen Biotech, Inc. |
| Yang      Ling Bodisen Agricultural Technology Co. Ltd. (“Bodisen      Agriculture”)                  | PRC                                                | 100%      by Bodisen Biotech, Inc. |
| Yang      Ling Bodisen Biology Science and Technology Development Company Limited      (“Yang Ling”)  | PRC                                                | 100%      by Bodisen Agriculture   |
| Xinjiang      Bodisen Agriculture Material Co. Ltd.                                                               | PRC                                                | 100%      by Yang Ling             |
|                                                                                                                   |                                               |                               |
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Tech  Laboratories  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ending  September  30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Donna Silverman,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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


Date: November 14, 2006



                                        By: /s/ DONNA SILVERMAN
                                            _______________________________
                                                Donna Silverman
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of Manuel J. Marxuach, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

November 8, 1957.

*Sidney J. Shaw*and *Sanford Solars*for Manufacturers Trust Company, as executor, petitioner.

*Carson Be Witt Baker,*special guardian for John K. McManus and another, infants, respondents.

Joseph A. Cox, S.

The executor has petitioned for a construction of paragraph Fourth of decedent’s will. After directing that debts and funeral expenses be paid, the testator bequeathed his personal and household effects to his wife in paragraph Third of his will. Paragraph Fourth thereof reads as follows: *‘ ‘*In addition to the bequest made to her in Article ‘ THIRD ’ *785hereof, I give, devise and bequeath to my wife, forty (40) per cent of my net estate computed before payment of any Federal or State estate taxes. ’ ’

In paragraph Fifth, he gave a general legacy of $5,000 to his stepdaughter and in paragraph Sixth he established a trust of $70,000 for the benefit of his son for life. In paragraph Seventh, the testator disposed of his residuary estate by giving one half to one daughter outright and the other half to another daughter in trust. In paragraph Eighth, the testator stated that the provisions for his wife were in lieu of dower and in bar of her right of election.

The question presented is whether the benefits in paragraphs Third, Fifth and Sixth should be deducted, together with debts, funeral and administration expenses, from the gross estate in computing the widow’s 40% of the net estate. The court holds that those legacies are not to be deducted. The net estate is the gross estate less debts, funeral and administration expenses *(Matter of Mass,*65 N. Y. S. 2d 93; *Matter of Goldstein,*109 N. Y. S. 2d 553; see, also, *Matter of Petroff,*5 Misc 2d 318, 320). A reading of the entire will shows that the testator was cognizant of the difference between a net estate and a residuary estate.

Submit decree on notice construing the will accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62336-62337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


DoD Dependent Schools; Eligibility Requirements

AGENCY: DoD, DoDDS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    On August 17, 2000, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force 
Management Policy (ASD(FMP)), signed a memorandum to change Department 
of Defense (DoD) Directive 1342.13, ``Eligibility Requirements for 
Education of Minor Dependents in Overseas Areas,'' dated July 8, 1982. 
The change provides financial assistance for the education of certain 
Defense dependents overseas in ares in which the Department of Defense 
Dependents Schools (DoDDS) does not operate a school. Sponsors must 
obtain approval for the allowance from the cognizant DoDDS approval 
authority prior to incurring any expense, with the amount of the 
educational allowance normally not to exceed the ``at post'' rate 
authorized by the Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR) 
(Government Civilians in Foreign Areas), Sections 031.1 and 277.1, for 
the overseas location to which the DoD sponsor is assigned. No 
allowance will be provided to defray the educational expenses of 
dependents of eligible sponsors stationed in overseas areas where 
local, tax-supported schools provide an educational program in the 
English language. In such instances, sponsors are expected either to 
send their dependents to local public schools or to be personally 
responsible for their private school tuition. The only exception to 
this policy will be for those dependents whose DoD sponsors are either 
assigned to a Department of State Activity or independently assigned as 
an exchange officer to a host nation program. In these cases, the DoD 
sponsor will be afforded the same educational allowance provided to 
Department of State employees, or to members of the host nation program 
to which the DoD sponsor is assigned or attached, up to the published 
DSSR rate.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 62337]]

    DoD Directive 1342.13, ``Eligibility Requirements for Education of 
Minor Dependents in Overseas Areas,'' dated July 2, 1982, is published 
at 32 CFR part 71 and copies are available, at cost, from the National 
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 
Virginia 22161, or the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) 
web site: www.odedodea.edu. Questions can be addressed to the 
Department of Defense Education Activity, Attention: Ms. Gail Terres, 
4040 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203-1635.

    Dated: October 12, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-26676 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
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 March 31, 2011 (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:  May 13, 2011                                          /s/ John Tulin


________________________________


John Tulin, Chief Executive Officer








Dated:  May 13, 2011                                          /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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4371]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0168; FRL-9271-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the state of Missouri to add two new rules which 
implement restrictions on the idling of heavy duty diesel vehicles in 
the Kansas City Metropolitan Area and in the St. Louis Ozone 
Nonattainment Area. EPA is proposing this revision because the 
standards and requirements set by the rules will strengthen the 
Missouri SIP. EPA's approval of this SIP revision is being done in 
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
March 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2010-0168, by mail to Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, 
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also be submitted 
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the 
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule 
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bhesania at (913) 551-7147, or by 
e-mail at bhesania.amy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal 
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final 
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse 
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set 
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are 
received in response to this action, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives 
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of 
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional 
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules 
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 16, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-4371 Filed 2-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```