alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In
connection with the Annual Report of CLP Holdings Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew
Brandler, Group Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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: June 16, 2004



By:

/s/ Andrew BrandlerAndrew Brandler Group Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer










|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
-----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-42859 of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust
III, Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital
Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P. and Registration Statement
No. 333-44173 of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital
Trust IV, Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P., Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. on Forms S-3 of our
reports dated March 22, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV,
L.P. for the year ended December 26, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


New York, New York
March 22, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

# TIME AND DATE:

8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., November 20, 2000.

# PLACE:

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Board of Regents Conference Room (D3001), 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814-4799.

# STATUS:

Open—under “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)).

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

## 8:30 a.m. Meeting—Board of Regents

(1) Approval of Minutes—September 8, 2000

(2) Faculty Matters

(3) Departmental Reports

(4) Financial Report

(5) Report—President, USUHS

(6) Report—Dean, School of Medicine

(7) Report—Dean, Graduate School of Nursing

(8) Comments—Chairman, Board of Regents

(9) New Business

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Mr. Bobby D. Anderson, Executive Secretary, Board of Regents, (301) 295-3116.

Dated: October 20, 2000.

Linda Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-27446 Filed 10-20-00; 3:08 pm]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                              EXHIBIT 12


                                                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                                                                MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                                                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)



                                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED              FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                      DECEMBER 30, 2005                  DECEMBER 31, 2004               DECEMBER 26, 2003
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED        PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                            CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V, L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ----------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 63,795           $ 74,606        $ 63,795           $ 74,447         $ 63,795            $ 74,430
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -         $      -            $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    61,880             63,795          61,880             63,795           61,880              63,795
                               --------           --------        --------           --------         --------            --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 61,880           $ 63,795        $ 61,880           $ 63,795         $ 61,880            $ 63,795
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17             1.03                1.17


</TABLE>
#### KUTSCHER et al. v. ROACH et al.

No. 15267.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Sept. 28, 1951.

Storey, Sanders, Sherrill & Armstrong, and Hugh L. Steger, all of Dallas, for appellants.

A. L. Crouch, Fort Worth, for appellees.

HALL, 'Chief Justice.

Appellees, Sam N. Roach, Frank H. Roach and wife, Lois J. Roach, sued appellants, J. E. Kutscher, Robert J. Sabinske, and Harry V. Dulick, all residents of Dallas County, Texas, in the district court of Tarrant County. Appellees have filed no brief.

This appeal is from an order, overruling appellants’ plea of privilege.

The allegations of appellees are that they were induced to sign a contract for deed on two lots situated in Tarrant County by false representations of appellants’ agent, Joe Smalky; they prayed for rescission of the contract, and that they be repaid $140 as actual damages, which was the amount of their payments on the contract, together with $3,000 exemplary damages.

Appellees’ controverting affidavit to appellants’ plea of privilege sets out exception to exclusive venue in the county of appellants’ residence as provided by Article 1995, subdivisions 5, 7 and 14, R.C.S., Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, subds. 5, 7, 14.

It is alleged in appellees’ controverting affidavit that they received a letter advertising lots in Saddle Hills Addition to Tar-rant County and went to appellants’ real estate office at 7112 Bankhead Highway in Fort Worth; that appellants’ agent, Joe Smalky, made certain representations to them about two lots in an attempt to persuade them to sign a written contract; 'that such representations were false and their signatures were procured fraudulently.

The false representations alleged and testified to by appellees which were made to them by appellants’ agent are: That the lots had been approved for FHA loans; that arrangements had been completed for the extension of City gas, water, light and sewer facilities to these lots upon three days’ notice by purchasers, and that arrangements had been completed for the construction of adequate roads to these lots within a period of sixty days.

Appellants’ main contention is that the evidence is insufficient to maintain venue in Tarrant 'County. We'overrule this contention. The contract calls for performance by appellants in Tarrant County. One of the appellees testified he had called upon appellants through their agent and left word at their office that he was ready to build on his lot and would like for them to extend the above utilities to *685where they would he -available to his lots; that they had failed to do so and therefore he desired to have the contract: rescinded and the purchase price repaid to them.

While the testimony that would jus-tifya finding of exemplary damages is negligible, yet we feel that- it is sufficient to maintain- venue in Tarrant County under subdivision *7*of Article 1995.

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed;
H. R. 3343 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

An Act 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the rules regarding 

the determination of the compensation of the Chief Financial Officer of the District 

of Columbia. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION 

OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA. 

(a) DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION.—Section 424(b)(2)(E) of 

the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1–204.24(b)(2)(E), 

D.C. Official Code) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(E) PAY.—The Chief Financial Officer shall be paid 

at a rate such that the total amount of compensation paid 

during any calendar year does not exceed an amount equal 

to the limit on total pay which is applicable during the 

year under section 5307 of title 5, United States Code, 

to an employee described in section 5307(d) of such title.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### CALDWELL v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 27, 1953.

C. F. See, Jr., Louisa, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., and W. Owen Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

Cebrum Caldwell was found guilty of the larceny of a three weeks’ old, red and white faced calf, and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. He contends that he was not identified, that the value of the calf was not established, that hearsay evidence was admitted, and that he was entitled to a peremptory instruction of acquittal.

The testimony discloses that the owner of the calf was awakened by the -bawling of the mother cow, investigated and found that the calf had been led to the highway and apparently transported away in an automobile. An hour or two later the calf was located in company with two other calves at the Ashland Stockyards, and inquiry revealed that it had been brought in by a stock dealer who was having his breakfast in a nearby restaurant. At the restaurant the stock dealer and his companion said they bought the calf from a young man, later identified by them as the defendant, who was standing at the side of the road holding the calf by a rope. They paid the defendant $28 for it and expected to get from $35 to $40 for it. Other testimony indicated that shoe prints and tire tracks on the side of the highway where the calf had been placed in the 'automobile resembled - shoe prints of the defendant and tire treads on an automobile which had been available to him. Nature also testified when the cow “owned” the returned calf.

It is obvious from this recital that the defendant was sufficiently identified and the value o'f the calf fairly established. We find no incompetent evidence was admitted which would be deemed prejudicial, and there were no errors in the instructions.

.The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2028 

In Re: BRUCE BENNETT, SR.,

Debtor.

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

BRUCE BENNETT, SR.,

Debtor - Appellant,

versus

BAY VIEW BANK; HFTA FIRST FINANCIAL;

MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, as

trustee for Securitization Series 1997-3

Agreement dated 6/12/97,

Creditors - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge; Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-23129-2-CWH; BK04-09737-WB)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Bennett, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Weston Adams, III, MCANGUS,

GOUDELOCK & COURIE, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Bennett, Sr., seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order granting the Appellees’ motion to include a

bankruptcy court order in the record on appeal. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Bennett seeks to appeal

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Bennett’s motion to proceed

on appeal in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 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
#### BATES v. STATE.

No. 23192.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1945.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Collin County for the offense of unlawfully possessing whisky, and, upon his plea of guilty before the court, he was found guilty and his punishment assessed at a fine of $200 and three months in jail. One prior conviction for the purpose of enhancing the penalty was alleged in the complaint and information.

The proceedings are regular and the record is before this court without bills of exception or a statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD., ZMC-USA L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants

v.

KANEKA CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2018-1618, 2018-1662

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas in No. 4:11-cv-01052, Judge 

Vanessa D. Gilmore.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

PAUL WHITFIELD HUGHES, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-cross-appellants. Also 

represented by GARY HNATH, BRYAN NESE; BRIAN 

ROSENTHAL, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, 

NY. 

 KEITH D. NOWAK, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by GERALD W. GRIFFIN, WILLIAM F. SONDERICKER; 
ROBERT MCGEE BOWICK, JR., Raley & Bowick, LLP, Houston, TX. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 May 13, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the audited financial
statements at December 31,1999 which are included in the Registrant's Form 10-K
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0001052196
<NAME>                   DSET CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                          3,721
<SECURITIES>                                   36,974
<RECEIVABLES>                                  20,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (600)
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               63,015
<PP&E>                                          5,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,138)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 73,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,389
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       45,636
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   73,495
<SALES>                                        44,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               44,629
<CGS>                                           8,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  28,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 9,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                    3,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             6,517
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    6,517
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.63<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.59<F2>
<FN>
<F1>  This amount represents Basic Earnings per share
      in accordance with the requirements of Statement
      of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128 --
      'Earnings per share.'

<F2>  This amount represents Diluted Earnings per Share
      in accordance with the requirements of Statement
      of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128 --
      'Earnings per Share.'
</FN>




</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEMARIOUS T. CALDWELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-4496

[ March 18, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562009CF003442A.

Demarious T. Caldwell, Madison, Pro Se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke Robert 

Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Demarious Caldwell appeals an order striking his rule 3.850 motion as 

untimely filed.

On direct appeal, this Court affirmed with a citation to a case pending 

review in the Florida Supreme Court, and Caldwell sought discretionary 

review. Caldwell v. State, 86 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The time 

for filing a rule 3.850 motion was tolled until the Florida Supreme Court 

dismissed review of the direct appeal proceedings. Mullins v. State, 974 

So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The state concedes that Caldwell’s 

postconviction motion was timely filed and he should have been given leave 

to correct the pleading deficiencies in his motion. Fla. R. Crim. P. 

3.850(f)(2).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to give appellant 

leave to amend his motion.

Reversed and Remanded.
2

GROSS, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### COLEMAN v. STATE.

No. 23905.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

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

*877DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while license was suspended after conviction for driving an automobile while intoxicated, as provided by Sec. 34, Article IV, of Art. 6687b, Vernon’s Civil Statutes.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

Nothing is presented by appellant for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.