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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                            U.S. BRIDGE OF N.Y., INC.
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE


     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet,  Statement  of  operations,  Statement  of Cash  Flows and Notes  thereto
incorporated  in Part I,  Item 1 of this Form  10-QSB  and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       

<S>                                                  <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                               676,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        13,191,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2,287,000
<INVENTORY>                                          2,426,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       14,507,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                8,278,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             504,047
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           5,724,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         14,507,409
<SALES>                                              8,918,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     8,918,385
<CGS>                                                7,541,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        7,541,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     590,697
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   29,820
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      789,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                         226,950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  562,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         562,511
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.24

        


</TABLE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 12

Declaring the sense of Congress regarding periods of silence in the public

schools.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. NEAL of North Carolina submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and Education and Labor

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Declaring the sense of Congress regarding periods of silence

in the public schools.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress—

3 (1) that the Constitution of the United States

4 does not preclude periods of silence to be used, solely

5 at the discretion of the individual student in public

6 schools, for quiet and private prayer, meditation,

7 contemplation, or introspection, even if these mo8 ments are supervised by a school official; and
2

HCON 12 IH

1 (2) that public school authorities should recog2 nize the historic importance of religion to our civili3 zation by encouraging such periods of silence.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 214 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28239]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,900, et al.]


OXY USA, Inc., Houston, Texas, et al.; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reopening

    On October 10, 2000, the company requested Administrative 
Reconsideration for workers and former workers of the subject firm 
engaged in the production of crude oil and natural gas.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
issued on August 7, 2000, because imports did not contribute 
importantly to the worker separations. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on September 12, 2000 (65 FR 55049).
    New information submitted to the Department by the company as well 
as recent information on aggregate U.S. imports of crude oil and 
natural gas which were not available at the time of the initial 
investigation revealed that production and employment declined. From 
1998 to 1999 aggregate U.S. imports for both natural gas and crude oil 
increased both absolutely and relative to domestic shipments. Further, 
imports of crude oil increased in the period January through June 2000 
compared to the same time period in 1999.
    Workers at OXY USA in Houston, Texas and Liberal, Kansas were 
covered by a previous certification, (TA-W-34,538) which expired on 
July 8, 2000. Workers at Aransas Pass, Texas and Venice, Louisiana were 
not covered by a previous certification.

Conclusion

    After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on reopening, 
it is concluded that increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with crude oil and natural gas produced by the subject firm 
contributed importantly to the decline in sales and to the total or 
partial separation of workers of the subject firm. In accordance with 
the provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, I make the following revised 
determination:

    All workers of OXY USA Inc. Houston, Texas (TA-W-37,900); 
Liberal, Kansas (TA-W-37,900B) who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after July 9, 2000; and all workers 
of OXY USA Inc., Aransas Pass, Texas (TA-W-37,900A) and Venice, 
Louisiana (TA-W-37,900C), who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after June 26, 1999 through two years from the 
date of this certification are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, DC this 19th day of October 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-28239 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit 99.1

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

CERTIFICATION pursuant to Section 906 of the 

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with this annual report of Essex Portfolio, L.P. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Keith R. Guericke, Chief Executive Officer of EssexProperty Trust, Inc., the general partner of the registrant Essex Portfolio,L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

	(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

	(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

 

 

 

Date: March 31, 2003

/s/ Keith R. Guericke
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Russo, Appellant.

(No. 28187

Decided June 19, 1940.)

*Mr. Frank T. Cullitan,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Neil W. McGill*and *Mr. John P. Butler,*for appellee.

*Mr. William L. Brooker*and *Messrs. Bushnell, Burgess, Fulton é Chandler,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 66163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28368]



[[Page 66161]]

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

Part VI





The President





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



Notice of October 31, 2000--Continuation of Sudan Emergency


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 66163]]

                Notice of October 31, 2000

                
Continuation of Sudan Emergency

                On November 3, 1997, by Executive Order 13067, I 
                declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual 
                and extraordinary threat to the national security and 
                foreign policy of the United States constituted by the 
                actions and policies of the Government of Sudan. By 
                Executive Order 13067, I imposed trade sanctions on 
                Sudan and blocked Sudanese government assets. Because 
                the Government of Sudan has continued its activities 
                hostile to United States interests, the national 
                emergency declared on November 3, 1997, and the 
                measures adopted on that date to deal with that 
                emergency must continue in effect beyond November 3, 
                2000. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of 
                the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 
                continuing the national emergency for 1 year with 
                respect to Sudan.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                     October 31, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00-28368
Filed 11-01-00; 11:55 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Western Power & Equipment Corp. &
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, C.Dean McLain, Chief Executive 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 the best of 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.


                                        /s/ C. Dean McLain
                                        -------------------------
                                        Name: C.Dean McLain
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        Date: December 17, 2007




     A signed original of the written statements required by Section 906 has
been provided to Western Power & Equipment Corp. & Subsidiary and will be
retained by Western Power & Equipment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### CRAIG v. STATE.

No. 22317.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 2, 1942.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Jan. 6, 1943.

*524Jones & Jones, of Mineóla, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This purports to be an appeal from a conviction for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area, with a fine of $200 affixed as the punishment.

For the same reason assigned in Davis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 167 S.W.2d 523, this day decided, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been considered by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal

KRUEGER, Judge.

At a former day of this term of court, we dismissed the appeal by reason of a deficient record. Since then the record has been perfected. Therefore, the appeal is now reinstated and the case will be disposed of on its merits.

The only question presented by appellant which we need to consider is the sufficiency of the evidence to show that'. Wood County was a dry area and that local option was in force and effect in said county. A careful review of the statement, of facts convinces us that the State has failed to prove, if it could, that the result of the election held within and for Wood County on the 7th day of December, 1912, was declared and that the declaration was published in some newspaper selected by the county judge and a certificate thereof entered upon the minutes of the Commissioners’ Court of said county, which was necessary to put local option in force and effect. In support of what we have said, we refer to Watson v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 632, 122 S.W.2d 311, and Baldridge v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 590, 106 S.W.2d 700, where the question was discussed at length, and we see no need for reiterating what we have therein stated.

From what we have said, it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

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.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595

THERASENSE, INC. (now known as Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.) and ABBOTT LABORATORIES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

BECTON, DICKINSO N AND COMPANY, and NOVA BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States Distric t Court for the Northern District of California in consolidated case nos. 04-CV-2123, 04-CV-3327, 04-CV-3732, and 05-CV-3117, Judge William H. Alsup.

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

2009-1374

TIVO INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION, ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ECHOSPHERE LIMITED LI ABILITY COMPANY, ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LLC, and DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 2:04-CV-01, Judge David Folsom.

ON MOTION

O R D E R

Oral arguments en banc for the above-noted appeals ar e scheduled for Tuesday,

November 9, 2010, in courtroom 201. A ppeal No. 2008-1511, Therasense, et al. v.

Becton Dickinson and Company, et al., will be argued at 10 a.m. Appeal No. 2009-

1374, Tivo, Inc. v. Echostar Corporation, et al., will be argued at 11 a.m. Counsel for

each side for each appeal will be allowed 30 minutes to argue. Counsel for each party

shall notify the clerk in writing by August 16, 2010, of the name of the attorney who will

argue for that party.

FOR THE COURT

June 3, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Rohit Kumar Singla Rachel Krevans Bradford J. Badke Seth P. Waxman E. Joshua Rosenkranz All amicus curiae counsel

2008-1511, -1512, -1513,-1514,-1595 2009-1374 - 2 -
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                              Revolving Credit Note

$14,018,691.59                                                     July 29, 1999

      ACT Manufacturing, Inc. and CMC Industries, Inc. (collectively, the
"Borrowers"), for value received, hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to
the order of IBJ Whitehall Business Credit Corporation (the "Lender") at the
office of The Chase Manhattan Bank at One Chase Square, Rochester, New York
14643, for the account of such Lender, the principal sum of Fourteen Million
Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-One Dollars and 59/100 ($14,018,691.59) or,
if less, the amount of Revolving Credit Loans loaned by the Lender to the
Borrowers pursuant to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement referred to
below, in lawful money of the United States of America and in immediately
available funds, on the date(s) and in the manner provided in said Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement. The Borrowers also promise to pay interest on the
unpaid principal balance hereof, for the period such balance is outstanding, at
said principal office for the account of said Lender, in like money, at the
rates of interest as provided in the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
described below, on the date(s) and in the manner provided in said Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement.

      This is one of the Notes referred to in that certain Amended and Restated
Credit Agreement (as amended from time to time the "Credit Agreement") dated as
of July 29, 1999 among the Borrowers, the Subsidiary Guarantor named therein,
the Lenders named therein (including the Lender), and The Chase Manhattan Bank,
as Agent, and evidences the Revolving Credit Loans made by the Lender to the
Borrowers thereunder. All terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given
to them in the Credit Agreement.

      The Credit Agreement provides for the acceleration of the maturity of
principal upon the occurrence and during the continuance of certain Events of
Default and for prepayments on the terms and conditions specified therein.

      The Borrowers waive presentment, notice of dishonor, protest and any other
notice or formality with respect to this Note.
<PAGE>

      This Note shall be governed by, and interpreted and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of New York.

ATTEST:                                   ACT MANUFACTURING, INC.


By:                                       By:   /s/ Jeffrey B. Lavin
   ------------------------------            -----------------------------------
Name:                                     Name:       Jeffrey B. Lavin
                                          Title:      Chief Financial Officer


ATTEST:                                   CMC INDUSTRIES, INC.


By:                                       By:   /s/ Jeffrey B. Lavin
   ------------------------------            -----------------------------------
Name:                                     Name:       Jeffrey B. Lavin
                                          Title:      Chief Financial Officer
#### LOVETT v. STATE.

No. 24729.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 5, 1950.

Dan Abbott, Abilene, for appellant.

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

*856WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon a trial for the offense of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, appellant was found guilty by the jury, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $100.

The court instructed the jury that the State relied upon circumstantial evidence. The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction under such charge.

Appellant filed a motion for continuance based upon the absence of two witnesses and in such motion under oath alleged that such witness.es, if present, would testify that on the date alleged, appellant at no time was driving an automobile while he was intoxicated as alleged, and was innocent of the charge against him.

To the action of the court in overruling such motion for continuance, appellant excepted and tendered to the court his Bill of Exception No. 1, in which bill is found the following certification by , the trial judge:

“Be it further remembered that the * * *, Judge of said court, despite defendant’s said motion for a continuance, refused to grant said continuance, forced this defendant to trial, and that this defendant did not have, nor did he present a single witness in his behalf *whereby this defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.”*

The court did not in his qualification to this bill in any way attempt to qualify the above statement. He did, over the objection of appellant, hear evidence on the question of whether or not the residence of said witnesses was in Taylor County.

But in any event, appellant excepted to the qualification of his Bill of Exception No. 1, and said bill must therefore be considered as though approved without qualification. See Palmer v. State, Tex.Cr.R., 226 S.W.2d 634; Ross v. State, Tex.Cr.R., 225 S.W.2d 189, and cases there cited.

We are in no position to sustain the court’s action in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial, he certifying to us that thereby “this defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.”

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**Exhibit10.6**

** **

**CONSULTING AGREEMENTADDENDUM**

** **

**ThisConsulting Agreement Addendum is entered into effective as of March 6, 2003,and is a supplement to, and modification of, that certain Consulting Agreement(the “Original Agreement”) by and between F.Y.I. Incorporated (n/k/a *SOURCECORP,* Incorporated) (the “Company”)and David Lowenstein (“Consultant”), dated as of January 1, 2000.**

** **

1.             **Fee Modification. **Effective March 6, 2003, in addition to the fees contemplatedby Section 2 of the Original Agreement, Consultant shall be paid the lesser of$140 per hour or $1000 per day, for services Consultant performs at the requestof, and on behalf of, the Company, subject to the aggregate compensationlimitation under the Original Agreement of $250,000 for any calendar year; provided,that such fees shall not be available for *SOURCECORP*Board of Director related activities or (preclosing) acquisition relatedactivities, which Board related activities are compensated for in accordancewith the then prevailing Board compensation structure and which (preclosing)acquisition related activities are compensated for under Section 2 of theOriginal Agreement.

 

2.             **Governing Law**.  This Addendum shall in all respects beconstrued according to the laws of the State of Texas.

 

3.             **Counterparts**.  This Addendum may be executed simultaneously in two (2) or morecounterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of whichtogether shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

 

4.             **Effect of Addendum**.  Except as specifically amended by thisAddendum, all provisions of the Original Agreement remain in full force andeffect in accordance with their express terms.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Addendum as of the dayand year first above written.

 

 
| ***SOURCECORP,***** Incorporated** |                                  | **CONSULTANT**       |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------|
| **(f/k/a  F.Y.I. Incorporated)**        |                                  |                 |
|                                    |                                  |                 |   |
|                                    |                                  |                 |   |
| By:                                     |                                  | /s/ Thomas C. Walker |   | /s/ David Lowenstein |   |
|                                    | Thomas C. Walker                      |                 | David Lowenstein |
| Title:                                  | Chairman andChief Development Officer |                 |   |
|                                         |                                       |                      |  |  |  |

 

----