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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011733
<NAME> TRIMOL GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,092
<SECURITIES>                                     2,161
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                       640
<INVENTORY>                                        154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,819
<PP&E>                                           7,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,573
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,631
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,854
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    68
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,182
<INCOME-TAX>                                        65
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,088
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.091
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.091
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31(B)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey Moore, hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Gourmet Group, Inc.

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  Annual  Report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this Annual  Report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4.  The  registrant`s  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information  relating to the  registrant,  is made known to us by others  within
those  entities,  particularly  during the period in which this Annual Report is
being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant`s  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Annual
Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this Annual Report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant`s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant`s auditors and the audit committee of
registrant`s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant`s  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant`s
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant`s internal controls; and

6. The  registrant`s  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
Annual Report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By: /s/ Jeffrey Moore
   ---------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer) and Director
Dated: October 13, 2004
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED)  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended), the undersigned officer of Applied Visual Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:   The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: April 5, 2011 Signed: /s/ Michael W. Trudnak Name: Michael W. Trudnak Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
# STATEOFLOUISIANA COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

SHAWN NOELL HOLLIDAY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OFALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

VERSUS

THE LOUISIANAOFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THROUGH KAREN ST. GERMAIN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITYAS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OFMOTORVEHICLES, THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THROUGH JEFF LANDRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITYAS LOUISIANAATTORNEY GENERAL, THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THROUGH KIMBERLY L. ROBINSON, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE LOUISIANAOFFICE OF DEBT RECOVERY, A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOUR BETWEEN THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND THE LOUISIANAATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THROUGH KIMBERLY L. ROBINSON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITYAS THE SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND JEFFLANDRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITYAS THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL NO. 2024 CW 0131



### MAY 21, 2024

In Re: Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles through Karen St. Germain, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 652347.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, ANDMILLER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The trial court's February 1, 2024 judgment denying the exception of no cause of action and deferring as moot the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed by the defendant, the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles, is vacated. The trial court should first rule

on the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction before ruling on any other exceptions. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to rule on the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and if necessary following that ruling, the exception of no cause of action.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# a.C~

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT PMc CHH SMM
#### R. C. BUCKNER et al. v. Mrs. Addie TURNER et al.

No. 3519.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont

July 27, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1939.

Tom P. Scott and W. E. Cureton, both of Waco, for appellants.

Collins, Pate, Hatchell & Garrison, of Lufkin, for appellees.

O’QUINN, Justice.

This is a companion case to R. C. Buckner, et al. v. Mrs. Ollie Colwell, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 675, this day decided by *677this court. The facts are the same, except as to identity of the parties; they grew out of the same occurrence, and the questions of law are identical. On the authority of that case the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### PATE v. STATE.

No. 15250.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1932.

W. B. Thomas, of Groveton, and G. C. Lowe, of Woodville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s' Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CALHOUN, J.

The offense, cattle theft; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant’s motion for new trial in this case was overruled on November 6,1931, and at this time notice of appeal was given, at which time appellant was allowed 50 days in which to prepare and file a statement of facts and bills of exception. The statement of facts was no.t filed in the trial court until February 23, 1932, which was 109 days after notice of appeal had been given. On the 28th day of December, 1931, .the trial court made an order extending the time in which to file a statement of facts and bills of exception and allowed 90 days from the date of adjournment of court on December 5,1931. The statement of facts was filed within 90 days from the adjournment of court. The time for filing bills of exception and statement of facts may not be extended by the trial court beyond the 90-day period provided by statute. Article 760, C. C. P.; Tillar v. State, 111 Tex Cr. 410, 13 S.W.(2d) 368. So far as the court’s order giving 90 days from adjournment had the effect of extending the time beyond that permitted by law, it was unauthorized. Simpson v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. 399, 10 S.W.(2d) 567 and cases therein cited; Finley v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 240, 29 S.W.(2d) 346. The statement of facts was filed too late to be entitled to consideration by this court. See Simmons v. State, 116 Tex. Cr. R. 68, 28 S.W.(2d) 1084; Steelman v. State, 106 Tex. Cr. 214, 291 S. W. 549. We also note that the statement of facts does not show to have been approved by the trial judge.

No bills of exception appear in the record. Other complaints are made in appellant’s brief of the overruling of a motion for a continuance and also overruling appellant’s application for a change of venue. These are not brought forward by bills of *64exception, and cannot be considered in the absence of bills of exception.

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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing proceeds upon a misapprehension. His statement of facts was duly signed by the trial judge. We did not decline to consider same upon the ground that it was not signed, but expressly stated that the said statement of facts was filed too late for our consideration, which was a correct conclusion.

The other ground of complaint is the refusal of the trial court to grant appellant’s application for change of venue. We have no right to consider as error the refusal of a change of venue when no exception to such action was taken by the appellant. There is no bill of exception in this record making such claim.

■ There are no other compláints in the motion for rehearing, and same will be overruled.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1547

To eliminate the franking privilege for the House of Representatives, to

establish a spending allowance for postage for official mail of the House

of Representatives and to limit the amount and type of mail sent by

Members of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 31, 1993

Mr. NUSSLE (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. INGLIS of

South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on House Administration and Post Office and Civil

Service

A BILL

To eliminate the franking privilege for the House of Representatives, to establish a spending allowance for postage for official mail of the House of Representatives

and to limit the amount and type of mail sent by Members of the House of Representatives.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Citizen Representative

5 Reform Act Use a Stamp Provision’’.
2

HR 1547 IH

1 SEC. 2. ABOLITION OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE FOR THE

2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

3 Notwithstanding title 39, United States Code, title

4 III of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991,

5 or any other provision of law, the franking privilege is

6 abolished with respect to the House of Representatives.

7 SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPENDING ALLOWANCE FOR

8 COSTS OF POSTAGE OF THE HOUSE OF REP9 RESENTATIVES.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—In lieu of the Official Mail Allow11 ance established by section 311 (e) of the Legislative

12 Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)), there

13 is established a spending allowance for postage for official

14 mail of the House of Representatives. The spending allow15 ance shall be available to Members in the same manner

16 and to the same extent as the Official Mail Allowance was

17 available under such section, except for the following—

18 (1) the spending allowance shall be used to pur19 chase stamps and other postage rather than to pay

20 for mail sent under the frank.

21 (2) Members of the House of Representatives

22 are only permitted to use postage purchased through

23 the spending allowance to respond once to a con24 stituent inquiry, conduct routine business including

25 but not limited to press releases and correspondence
3

HR 1547 IH

1 with Federal agencies and send one district-wide

2 mailing during the first session of a Congress.

3 (3) Officers and employees of the House of

4 Representatives shall purchase stamps and other

5 postage through their office’s official expense ac6 count.

7 (b) METERED MAIL.—The Postmaster of the House

8 of Representatives shall take such actions as may be nec9 essary to provide for use of postage meters to record the

10 cost and volume of mail paid for from the spending allow11 ance for postage.

12 (c) TRANSFERS.—All amounts that, but for the en13 actment of this Act, would have been available to pay for

14 franked mail of the House of Representatives shall be

15 transferred to the spending allowance for postage.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998 
<CASH>                                          39,958,080 
<SECURITIES>                                     4,549,096 
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,669,900 
<PP&E>                                           2,357,264 
<DEPRECIATION>                                     980,560 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,443,900 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,569,122 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                           104,266 
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,794,352 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,443,900 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,805,811 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 627,880 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,177,931)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,177,931)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,177,931)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.40)
                                               


</TABLE>
U.	S.	Department	of	Transportation Docket	Management	System 1200	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE Washington,	DC	20590

05/05/2015

Re:	Amendment	to	Exemption	11240	issued	pursuant	to	Section	333	of	the	FAA Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the	Federal	Aviation	Regulations	in	Regulatory	Docket

No.	FAA

- 2014

- 0353

- 0001.

Dear	Sir	or	Madam; Aerius	Flight	LLC,	was	issued	an	Exemption	numbered	112 40	(hereinafter the	Exemption)	for	the	purpose	of commercial	aerial	survey	and	photography operations. Aerius	Flight	LLC,	herby	requests	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption	to allow	an	additional	type	of	unmanned	aircraft	system	(UAS)	that	fully	complies
with	th e	conditions	of	the	Exemption. Aerius	Flight	LLC

, wishes	to	operate	a DYS	D800

- X8 under	the	same	terms and	conditions	contained	in	the	Exemption.	Attached	hereto,	and	submitted	as	a confidential	document,	is	the	Flight	Operations	Manua l	(FOM)	for	the	additional UASs.	All	operations	of	the	additional	UASs	will	be	in	full	compliance	with	the terms	of	the	Exemption. As	this	is	an	amendment	to	an	existing	exemption	asking	for	only	the addition	of	another	type	of	unmanned	aerial	vehicle,	Ae rius	Flight	LLC	respectfully submits	that	good	cause	exists	so	that	notice	does	not	need	to	be	published	in	the Federal	Register	for	the	requested	amendment. Please	contact	the	undersigned	should	you	have	any	question	concerning	this request	for	an	amendm ent	to	the	Exemption.

Regards

, Kenneth	Beason CEO,	Aerius	Flight	LLC kbeason@aeriusflight.com 1	(248)	767

- 9092

CC:
James	Williams Robert	Pappas
Jake	Troutman
John	McGraw
Jonathan	B.	Hill
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1171

ANA CELI MOLINA-BARAHONA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: November 17, 2020 Decided: December 3, 2020

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie E. Carrillo, CARRILLO & CARRILLO, LLC, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner. 

Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ana Celi Molina-Barahona, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider. 

We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and Molina-Barahona’s claims and 

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a), (b) (2020); Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009); Jean v. 

Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review 

for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Molina-Barahona (B.I.A. Jan. 16, 2020). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Brady, Appellant.

(No. 28657

Decided. June 11, 1941.)

*Mr. Frank T. Gullitcm,*prosecuting attorney, and • *Mr. Neil W. McGill,*for appellee. .

*Mr. W. K. Gardner,*for appellant.

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

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 9, 2022

NO. 03-21-00046-CV

Pools Unlimited, Inc.; Randy Lee Morrow; and Rhonda Jean Morrow, Appellants

v.

John Houchens and Brenda Houchens, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING –

OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on January 14, 2021. We withdraw 

our June 3, 2022 opinion and judgment and substitute the following opinion and judgment in 

their place. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there 

was reversible error in the trial court’s judgment Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s 

judgment as to appellees’ fraudulent-lien claim and breach-of-contract claim, including the trial 

court’s award of actual damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses. The Court 

remands appellees’ fraudulent-lien claim and breach-of-contract claim for a new jury trial. The 

Court affirms that portion of the judgment ordering that appellants take nothing on their breachof-contract claim. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this 

Court and in the court below.