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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                              0001052743
<NAME>                             FRONTLINE CAPITAL GROUP
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
<CURRENCY>                         U.S. DOLLARS

<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>                                         54,312
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               78,746
<PP&E>                                         94,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,023)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                541,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          67,187
<BONDS>                                       325,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          307
<OTHER-SE>                                    113,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  541,983
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              215,376
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 187,449
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               60,374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             18,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.56)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-399-000]

Take notice that a technical conference to further discuss the various issues raised by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation's Order No. 637 compliance filing will be held on Tuesday, November 14, 2000, at 10 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28128  Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation (Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Jason Davis, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of us.

 
| Date:   May 13, 2011                                      |              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
|                                                           |              |
| By:                                                            | /s/   Jason Davis |   |
| Jason   Davis                                                  |              |
| Principal   Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |              |
|                                                                |                   |  |

 

1

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-66055) pertaining to the 1996 Incentive Stock Plan, the 1996
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1998 Director Option Plan of Abgenix, Inc.
of our report dated January 22, 1999, with respect to the financial statements
of Abgenix, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1998.

                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 17, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3510 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3510

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the suspension of 
  eligibility for grants, loans, and work assistance for drug-related 
                               offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2013

  Ms. Bass (for herself, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Danny K. Davis of 
  Illinois, and Ms. Wilson of Florida) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the suspension of 
  eligibility for grants, loans, and work assistance for drug-related 
                               offenses.

    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 ``Stopping Unfair Collateral 
Consequences from Ending Student Success Act'' or ``SUCCESS Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUSPENSION OF ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION 
              ACT OF 1965 FOR GRANTS, LOANS, AND WORK ASSISTANCE FOR 
              DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES.

    (a) Repeal.--Subsection (r) of section 484 of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)) is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Higher Education Act of 1965 is 
amended--
            (1) in section 428(b)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(3))--
                    (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``485(l)'' and 
                inserting ``485(k)''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``485(l)'' and 
                inserting ``485(k)'';
            (2) in section 435(d)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)(5))--
                    (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``485(l)'' and 
                inserting ``485(k)''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``485(l)'' and 
                inserting ``485(k)'';
            (3) in section 484 (20 U.S.C. 1091), by redesignating 
        subsections (s) and (t) as subsections (r) and (s), 
        respectively; and
            (4) in section 485 (20 U.S.C. 1092)--
                    (A) by striking subsection (k); and
                    (B) by redesignating subsections (l) and (m) as 
                subsections (k) and (l), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
#### MORRISON v. STATE.

No. 24791.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1950.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1950.

Allison & Allison, By Earl R. Allison, Levelland, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $600.

For the purpose of making a search of the station for intoxicating liquor, peace officers, armed with a search warrant, went to the filling station operated ’by appellant. Upon approaching the station they saw appellant come out of a building near the station with four pints of whisky in his hands. Appellant was placed under arrest, *and the four pints*of whisky were seized.

The record suggests that the officers thereafter searched the filling station and found some whisky, but we are unable to ascertain from the facts the amount so found.

In any event, appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted the possession of all the whisky involved, which the state appears to have introduced in evidence. He insists, however, that he possessed it for his own personal use and not for the purpose of sale.

This defensive theory was pertinently submitted by the trial court in his charge to the jury.

The aforesaid admission of appellant rendered untenable his objection to the search of his premises and the result of that search.

The information followed established precedents and was not subject to any valid objection.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant complains in his motion because the State was permitted to ask appellant while on the witness stand as to whether he had ever sold any whisky out at his station. This question was objected to by appellant’s attorney that such had not been plead, was immaterial and violated the principle of self-incrimination. Such objection was overruled by the court. It is not shown in said bill whether any answer was ever made to such question. The statement of facts does show that appellant denied ever making such sales, and the matter went no further.

Appellant was charged with the possession of whisky for the purpose of sale, and we think that “in a prosecution for *809tlie possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, proof of sales made by the accused at a time not too remote is admissible as throwing light upon the purpose for which the liquor was possessed.” Hood v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 95, 10 S.W.2d 94, 97; Overley v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 283 S.W. 796; Johnson v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 417, 266 S.W. 155.

The motion will therefore 'be overruled.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 2, 2021

b0125 

# Order

Clerk February 2, 2021

161192 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161192

COA: 351989

Kent CC: 18

- 009095

- FC

KYLE RAYMOND MILLIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add document is GRANTED. The application

for leave to appeal the February 13, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and

it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court.
#### AZAR v. STATE.

No. 24849.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged in the County Court at Law of Travis County by complaint and information with the offense of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public street while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He plead not guilty to such charge, but was found guilty by a jury and his penalty assessed at a fine of fifty dollars, from which judgment this appeal is perfected.

Neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions are brought forward in the record. The proceedings appear to be regular, and the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements and in the related prospectuses of ISS Group, Inc. listed below of
our report dated January 22, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of ISS Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                  Registration Statement No. 333-54670 on Form S-8 (1995 Stock
                  Incentive Plan (Amended and Restated as of May 24, 2000), 1999
                  Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 International Stock
                  Purchase Plan)

                  Registration Statement No. 333-53279 on Form S-8 (Restated
                  1995 Stock Incentive Plan)

                  Registration Statement No. 333-89563 on Form S-8 (ISS Group
                  Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase
                  Plan, 1999 International Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Netrex,
                  Inc. 1998 Stock Plan)

                  Registration Statement No. 333-87557 on Form S-8 for the
                  registration of 723,987 shares of Common Stock


                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 2001
**Exhibit 32.2**
 
 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 of Apollo Gold Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Llee Chapman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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.
 ****Date: November 15, 2004

/s/ R. Llee ChapmanR. Llee Chapman,
Chief Financial Officer
Writ of Mandamus Denied; Opinion issued April 5, 2013

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00258-CV

IN RE CHRIS L. GILBERT AND GLENN E. JANIK, Relators

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-00621-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Bridges

Relators contend the trial judge erred in granting certain sanctions against relators. The 

facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the 

record before us, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

130258F.P05

/David L. Bridges/

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 12

                         ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED           NINE MONTHS ENDED
($ IN THOUSANDS)                      SEPTEMBER 30,                SEPTEMBER 30,
----------------                      -------------                -------------
                                   2001          2000          2001           2000
                                   ----          ----          ----           ----
<S>                              <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>
Income (loss) from
  continuing operations          $  2,270      $    689      $(38,259)      $ 23,728
Income tax benefit                      0             0       (16,880)             0
                                 --------      --------      --------       --------
Earnings (loss) before
  income tax benefit (A)            2,270           689       (55,139)        23,728
Fixed charges:
  Interest                         16,919        24,457        67,314         66,195
  One-third of all rentals            494           453         1,299          1,349
  Preferred stock dividend
    of subsidiary trust             2,248         2,248         6,743          6,743
                                 --------      --------      --------       --------
  Total fixed charges              19,661        27,158        75,356         74,287
                                 --------      --------      --------       --------
Earnings before income tax
  benefit and fixed charges      $ 21,931      $ 27,847      $ 20,217       $ 98,015
Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges (B)                  1.12  x       1.03  x        N/M (C)       1.32  x
</TABLE>

(A)  Earnings before income taxes in the nine months ended September 30, 2001
     include $41.8 million of unusual charges. Unusual charges include
     severance, outplacement and other compensation costs associated with
     restructuring our corporate functions commensurate with the ongoing
     businesses as well as expenses associated with exited businesses and asset
     impairments.

(B)  For purposes of computing these ratios, "earnings" represent income from
     continuing operations before income taxes plus fixed charges. "Fixed
     charges" consist of interest expense, one-third (the portion deemed
     representative of the interest factor) of rental expense on operating
     leases, and preferred stock dividends of subsidiary trust.

(C)  The ratio calculated in the nine months ending September 30, 2001 is less
     than 1.00 and therefore, not meaningful. In order to achieve a ratio of
     1.00, earnings before income taxes and fixed charges would need to increase
     by $55,139 for the nine months ended September 30, 2001.


                                       42
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.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4557-N-44]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

November 3, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clifford Taffet, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call he toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Fred Karnas, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs Assistance Programs.

[FR Doc. 00-28219  Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
Order entered February 11, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 01054 - CV RETAIL SERVICES WIS CORPORATION D/B/A PRODUCT CONNECTIONS, ET AL., Appellant s V. CROS SMARK, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429 - 05122 - 2020

ORDER Before the Court is appellee’s February 10, 2021 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file its brief on the me rits. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by appellee on February 9, 2021 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE