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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCUAL DATA SCHEDULE CINTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM GEOSCIENCE FORM 10-Q/A 2ND QUARTER 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     49,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,573
<PP&E>                                          22,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,458
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,304
<SALES>                                         46,652
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           28,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (1,588)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (53)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
RUSH ENTERPRISES, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
2006 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN
 Purpose
 Administration




---



##### 



Shares Available for Awards
 Aggregate Number of Shares Available for Awards
 Expired, Terminated or Forfeited Shares
 Options
 Grant of Options
 Exercise Price of Options
 Duration of Options
 Amount Exercisable
 Exercise of Options
  - 2 -




---



##### 



® ® ®
   Transferability of Options
  - 3 -




---



##### 



Termination
       No Rights as Shareholder
 Stock Awards.
 Grant of a Stock Award
 Award Restrictions
  - 4 -




---



##### 



Transferability
 Rights as Shareholders
 Written Agreement
 Requirements of Law
  - 5 -




---



##### 



Changes in the Companys Capital Structure
   - 6 -




---



##### 



Amendment or Termination of Plan
 Indemnification of Committee
 Effective Date of Plan .
  - 7 -
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 15057.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1932.

J. Walter Friberg and Ernest Robertson, both of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

CALHOUN, J.

The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

No notice of appeal appears in the record. In the absence of notice of appeal, this court has *no*jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.
#### BOONE v. STATE.

No. 20877.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 1940.

R. G. Allen, of Houston, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possessing whisky in a container to which no tax stamp was affixed showing the payment of the tax due the State of Texas; the punishment, confinement in jail for thirty days.

Officers went to the home of appellant on the 15th day of July, 1939, and found therein a gallon of whisky in a container bearing no tax stamp showing that the tax due the State of Texas had been *772paid. According to the testimony of the officers, appellant admitted that the whisky belonged to her. Appellant did not testify but introduced her son who said that “the house where the liquor was found was the home of the defendant and himself.” He also testified that other people lived in the house.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to support the conviction.

If it should be conceded that the search of appellant’s residence was illegal, it is observed that appellant’s son gave testimony showing the presence of the whisky in said residence. Under the circumstances, reversible error is not presented. At all events, the bills of exception in which complaint is made of the search are insufficient, in that they embrace no statements verifying the truth of appellant’s objections. A mere statement of a ground of objection in a bill of exception is not a certificate of the judge that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true; it merely shows that such an objection was made. Branch’s Ann.Texas P.C., Section 209; Edelen v. State, 103 Tex.Cr. R. 562, 281 S.W. 1078.

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.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51140

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIA ANN BALDERAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:02-CR-32-1-AML

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Julia Ann

Balderas has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required

by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Balderas has filed

a response to counsel’s motion to withdraw. Our independent

review of the brief, Balderas’s response, and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We decline to

address any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, without

prejudice to Balderas’s right to assert such claims in a motion
No. 04-51140

-2-

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d

312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Webb Interactive Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2004 and as mended on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lindley S. Branson, Vice President  General Counsel, the Companys principal executive and
principal financial officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/ Lindley S. BransonVice President  General Counsel(Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer)




Date: July 21, 2005



Ex-2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2146 Reference Change Senate (RCS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2146

   To extend the full Federal medical assistance percentage to urban 
                         Indian organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2017

  Mr. Udall (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Merkley, Ms. 
   Warren, Ms. Harris, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Markey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. 
Franken, and Ms. Baldwin) introduced the following bill; which was read 
         twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                            December 6, 2017

       Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the full Federal medical assistance percentage to urban 
                         Indian organizations.

    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 ``Urban Indian Health Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGE TO 
              URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is 
amended by striking ``Indian Health Care Improvement Act)'' and 
inserting ``Indian Health Care Improvement Act) or through an Urban 
Indian organization (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care 
Improvement Act) pursuant to a grant or contract with the Indian Health 
Service under title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                        BENCHMARQ MICROELECTRONICS, INC.

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                  (In thousands, except per share information)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                       Year ended December 31
                                                    1996        1995        1994
                                                  --------------------------------
 
<S>                                               <C>          <C>         <C>  
EARNINGS:
 Net income                                        $7,062      $3,802      $2,155
  Add: Interest expense, net of tax effect, 
       on subordinated promissory notes 
       assumed retired                                  -           -          36
                                                  --------------------------------
Adjusted net income                                $7,062      $3,802      $2,191
                                                  ================================
 
Shares:
 Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                                       6,640         738         217
 Weighted average common equivalent
  shares:
  Add:
   Common shares issued upon assumed
    conversion of preferred stock (a)                   -       4,713       5,106
   Common shares issued on assumed
    exercise of stock options and warrants          1,169       1,122       1,044
  Less: Shares assumed repurchased                    418         300         128
                                                  --------------------------------
Weighted average common and common
 equivalent shares                                  7,391       6,273       6,239
                                                  ================================
Earnings per common and common
 equivalent share                                   $0.96       $0.61       $0.35
                                                  ================================
</TABLE>
(a) For the period the preferred stock was outstanding prior to actual
    conversion in December 1996.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**MedImmune, Inc.**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of MedImmune, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

TheCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ DAVID  M. MOTT                                                   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David M. Mott                                                        |
| *Chief Executive Officer, President and Vice  Chairman of the Board* |
| March 7, 2005                                                   |
| /s/ LOTA S. ZOTH                                                     |   |
| Lota S. Zoth                                                         |
| *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*                  |
| March 7, 2005                                                   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

This certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission as Exhibit 32 to the Form 10-Kpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) andin accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. Thiscertification is not being “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and is not and should not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into the Form 10-K or any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

----
ex10_3.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.3

     

     

    Summary
of Equity Awards Granted to Mr. Paliwal and Mr. Parker

     

    In
September 2008, the Compensation and Option Committee (the “Committee”) of the
Board of Directors of Harman International Industries, Incorporated (the
“Company”) approved, among other things, long-term equity grants for the
Company’s executive officers, including Dinesh Paliwal, the Company’s Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer.  The grants to Mr. Paliwal included a
total of 72,748 stock options and 78,757 restricted stock units, all under the
Company’s 2002 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “Incentive Plan”).1  The stock options
vest ratably over three years, subject to Mr. Paliwal’s continued employment
with the Company, and have an exercise price equal to the market price of the
Company’s common stock on the date of grant.  For each restricted
stock unit, Mr. Paliwal is entitled to one share of the Company’s common
stock.  The restricted stock units vest three years from the date of
grant, subject to Mr. Paliwal’s continued employment with the
Company.  Mr. Paliwal’s letter agreement, which entitles him to
receive these annual equity awards, provides for award agreements with
provisions that are inconsistent with the applicable award agreements under the
Incentive Plan and previously approved by the Committee.  As a result,
at its next meeting in December 2008, the Committee intends to approve new award
agreements under the Incentive Plan for these awards, consistent with the terms
described above and the terms provided for in Mr. Paliwal’s letter
agreement.

     

    In
September 2008, the Committee also approved a one-time grant to Mr. Parker of
28,344 restricted stock units outside of the Incentive Plan.  For each
restricted stock unit, Mr. Parker will be entitled to receive one share of the
Company’s common stock.  Of the 28,344 restricted stock units, 23,595
vest on February 2, 2009 and 4,749 vest on May 13, 2010, subject to Mr. Parker’s
continued employment with the Company.  At its next meeting in
December 2008, the Committee intends to approve an award agreement that will set
forth the terms of Mr. Parker’s award, consistent with those described
above.

     

     

    ___________________________

    1 Of the
78,757 restricted stock units, 28,757 are subject to stockholder approval of
amendments to the Incentive Plan, as set forth in the Company’s proxy statement
mailed to stockholders on or about October 22, 2008.
```

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  R.  Karim  Chowdhury,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Homes For
America  Holdings,  Inc.,  a Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                        s/s R. Karim Chowdhury
                                        -----------------------
                                        R. Karim Chowdhury
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        August 14, 2002
```
#### In the Matter of Samuel Shatkin, Respondent, v St. Joseph Hospital et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The medical staff bylaws of respondent hospital provide for the automatic suspension of the hospital privileges of any practitioner whose license is revoked or suspended or of any practitioner placed on probation. After petitioner was placed on probation for three years by the State Board of *957Regents for engaging in improper sexual conduct involving female patients, respondent enforced the automatic suspension provision of the bylaws against petitioner. Petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the hospital’s action on several grounds, including the failure of the bylaws to comply with 10 NYCRR 405.1023 (i) (2), then in effect. Supreme Court granted the petition on this ground and ordered that petitioner be restored to staff privileges. We reverse and dismiss the petition.

In our view, article VII of the bylaws, which contains a clear and precise statement of the policies under which the medical staff regulates itself and sets forth the procedures for withdrawing privileges to physicians, complies with the applicable regulations. Although 10 NYCRR former 405.1023 (i) (2) (iv) required that bylaws include "[a] mechanism for appeal of decisions regarding medical staff membership and privileges”, that provision is inapplicable to the present situation where the suspension of petitioner’s privileges was the result of his being placed upon probation by the State Board of Regents, not the result of a decision made by the hospital. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Lawton, JJ.
#### Ex parte SCRIVENER.

No. 15029.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1932.

Justice *&*Scott, of - Houston, and L. M. Kenyon, of Galveston, for appellant.

O’Brien Stevens, Crim. Dist. Atty., of Houston, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appeal from an order fixing bail, deemed excessive.

The bail of appellant herein was fixed by a district court, and, from the order fixing the amount of such bail, appellant has appealed, asserting that said bail was and is excessive in amount. The presumption obtains that the action of the trial court is well founded until overcome by some character of proof. In the case before us there appears no attempt to show the financial situation of appellant, or that he has tried to make bail in the sum fixed by the trial court, or that his surroundings or circumstances are such that he cannot make such bond. An allegation of excessive bail does not prove itself. For aught we know, appellant might easily make the amount of bail as fixed.

Nor is there any showing of facts which negative the right of the trial court to conclude that appellant was one whose surroundings, antecedents, and character required a large bail. It is suggested in the record that he is under indictment in two cases in the trial court for murder, and that he has been an inmate of the penitentiary, and that he is wanted for various crimes in other places. This court must concede correctness on the part of the actions of the- lower courts unless we are convinced from the record otherwise. No effort apparently having been made to make the bond as fixed by the trial court, the judgment fixing same will not be disturbed. Ex parte Edmondson, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 294 S. W. 587.

The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0368 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. THOMAS WILLIAM SIGEA,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 4, 2021 within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 29 2021

04/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0368
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**In connection with this quarterly report of RushEnterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W.M. “Rusty” Rush, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

**1.**                                       The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

** **

**2.**                                       The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

** **

** **
|   | By:    | /S/ W.M. “RUSTY” RUSH       |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | W.M. “Rusty” Rush           |
|   | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | May 11,  2009                    |

 

 

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

** **

----