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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,473
<PP&E>                                         179,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,806
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           256
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,757
<SALES>                                          4,729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,757
<CGS>                                            3,326
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,294)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,092)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,092)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### POPE v. STATE.

No. 16799.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1934.

Otto H. Atchley, of New Boston, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

Appellant and Dick Blocker, deceased, had had a difficulty in which it appears that Blocker -had gotten the best of appellant. Some time after this difficulty, appellant struck Blocker with a piece of wood'and inflicted a wound on his head, which resulted in his death. Appellant testified that he hit deceased because he was angry with him for having previously whipped him. He testified, further, that he had no intention to kill deceased.

Appellant timely and properly excepted to the charge of the court for its failure to submit an affirmative instruction to the jury to acquit him of murder if the jury entertained a reasonable doubt as to whether he intended to kill deceased. The weapon used by appellant was a stick of wood about two feet long. Under the decisions of this court, it was not per se a deadly weapon. Briscoe v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S.W.(2d) 458, and authorities cited. The weapon not being a deadly one per se, and appellant having testified, in effect, that he had no intention of killing deceased, but merely struck him for the purpose of punishing him for the whipping deceased had given him, the court should have affirmatively‘instructed the jury to acquit appellant of murder if they entertained a reasonable doubt as to whether he intended to kill deceased. Briscoe v. State, supra.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

PER OURIAM.

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.
EXHIBIT 31.3



I, Patrycia T. Barnard, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BayCorp
Holdings, Ltd;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

  a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under  our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to  the
registrant,  including  its consolidated  subsidiaries,  is  made
known  to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

  b)  [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and
34-47986];

  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure
controls  and  procedures and presented in this quarterly  report
our   conclusions  about  the  effectiveness  of  the  disclosure
controls  and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by
this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

  d)  disclosed  in  this  quarterly report  any  change  in  the
registrant's  internal  control  over  financial  reporting  that
occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter  that
has  materially affected, or is reasonably likely  to  materially
affect,   the   registrant's  internal  control  over   financial
reporting;

5.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I   have
disclosed,  based  on  our  most recent  evaluation  of  internal
control  over  financial reporting, to the registrant's  auditors
and  the  audit committee of registrant's board of directors  (or
person performing the equivalent functions):

  a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design  or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which  are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
ability  to  record,  process,  summarize  and  report  financial
information; 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.



Date: November 14, 2005  By: /s/ Patrycia T. Barnard
                         ________________________________
                         Patrycia T. Barnard
                         Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
                         (chief accounting officer)
#### KNIGHT et al. v. STATE.

No. 14776.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1932.

Appeal Reinstated March 30, 1932.

Rehearing Withdrawn April 23, 1932.

*311A. C. Chrisman, of Cleburne, and Mays & Mays, of Fort Worth, for appellants.

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

CHRISTIAN, J.

This is an appeal from a final Judgment up-, on forfeiture of a bail bond.

There is nothing in the record showing that any briefs were filed in the trial court, or that there was a waiver of such filing. In an appeal from a judgment forfeiting a bail bond, the record will not be reviewed, in the absence of a showing that briefs had been filed in the trial court in accordance with the statutory rules on the subject, or that there was a waiver of such filing. Bratton et al. v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 329, 4 S.W.(2d) 562. The state’s attorney before this court moves that the appeal be dismissed. The motion must be sustained.

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.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

LATTIMORE, J.

The defects in the record which led to our dismissal of this appeal at a former day of this term having been corrected, the appeal will be reinstated and considered upon its merits.

In the case of C. J. Dunn et al. v. State, 53 S.W.(2d) 307, tins day decided, we overruled the authority relied upon by the appellants herein, and held, after a discussion of the cases in point, that a judgment nisi in form and substance similar to the one in the case before us, as well as a final judgment to the same effect, was valid. For the reasons given in that case, we are compelled to hold against appellants herein.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Rehearing Withdrawn.

MORROW, P. J.

This is an appeal from final judgment by sureties on forfeiture of bail bond.

Since the affirmance of the case at a former date, appellants have filed a written request, duly verified, asking that their motion for rehearing be withdrawn. The request is granted, and the motion is withdrawn.
ex10_13.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.13

     

    
      MARSHALL
HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

      CHARTER
OF THE GOVERNANCE AND NOMINATING COMMITTEE

      


      


      Purpose

      


      The
purpose of the Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors is
to assist the Board in identifying qualified individuals to become Board members
and determining the composition of the Board and its committees.

      


      Membership
And Procedures

      


      Membership and
Appointment.  The Committee shall consist of not less than
three members of the Board, with the exact number being determined by the
Board.  The members of the Committee shall be appointed and replaced
from time to time by the Board.

      


      Independence.  Each
member shall meet the independence requirements of applicable provisions of the
federal securities laws and the rules promulgated thereunder and the applicable
rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market, the New York Stock Exchange, or any other
exchange where the shares of the Company may be listed or quoted for
sale.

      


      Authority to Retain
Advisers.  In the course of its duties, the Committee shall
have sole authority, at the Company’s expense, to engage and terminate search
firms, as the Committee deems advisable, to identify director candidates,
including the sole authority to approve the search firm’s fees and other
retention terms.

      


      Evaluation.  The
Committee shall annually review and reassess the adequacy of this Charter and
recommend any proposed changes to the Board.

      


      Duties
And Responsibilities

      


      The
Committee shall:

      


      1.           Evaluate
and make recommendations regarding the composition and size of the
Board.

      


      2.           Determine
the composition of committees of the Board, with consideration of the desires of
individual Board members.

      


      3.           Monitor
compliance with Board and Board committee membership criteria.

      


      4.           Recommend
nominees to the full Board to fill vacancies on the Board.

      


      5.           Investigate
suggestions for candidates for membership on the Board and shall recommend
prospective directors, as required, to provide an appropriate balance of
knowledge, experience and capability on the Board, including stockholder
nominations for the Board.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

August 2 8 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk August 2 8 , 2020

1 60658

160660 (173)(174)

TAXPA YERS FOR MICHIGAN

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, STEVE

DUCHANE, RANDALL BLUM, and SARA

KANDEL,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 160658

COA: 334663

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF

TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET and OFFICE OF AUDITOR

GENERAL,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIGAN

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, STEVE

DUCHANE, RANDALL BLUM, and SARA

KANDEL,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 160660

COA: 334663

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF

TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET and OFFICE OF AUDITOR

GENERAL,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion s of defendants

- appellants in No. 160660

to extend the time for filing their brief on appeal and for immediate consideration are

GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before September

9 , 2020

. The filing of plaintiffs

- appellants’ brief on appeal in No. 160658 is also extended

to September 9, 2020.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    963,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,171,447
<PP&E>                                         315,070
<DEPRECIATION>                                (88,563)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,021,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,899,270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,717
<OTHER-SE>                                   (186,636)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,021,064
<SALES>                                        147,263
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,263
<CGS>                                          126,193
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,065,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             135,752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,179,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,179,887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,179,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.71)
        

</TABLE>
**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 Annual Report of Sunrise Energy Resources, Inc. a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), Roman Livson, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Sunrise Energy Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Sunrise Energy
      Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.






Date:
                March 31, 2008By:
            /s/
                Roman LivsonRoman
                LivsonChief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PUSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PUSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Form 10-K of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert O. Bond,
President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge (i)  the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, except as otherwise noted under Item 9A therein, and
(ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ ROBERT O.
BOND


Name:  Robert
O. Bond


Title:  President
and Chief Operating Officer


Date:  February
29, 2008














This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1
 
                        Consent of Independent Auditors
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-308, Form S-3 No. 333-310, Form S-3 No. 333-312, Form S-3
No. 333-16373, Form S-3 No. 333-66047, Form S-4 No. 333-20119, Form S-4
No. 333-29953) and in the related Prospectuses, in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-71346) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1991 Stock
Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-71350) pertaining
to the 1992 Stock Option Plan in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-
71348) pertaining to the Amended and Restated EMP Stock Option Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80211) pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 1987 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-80213) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80215) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan,
and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-16349) pertaining to the
1996 Option Plan of Medarex, Inc., of our report dated February 10, 1999,
except for Note 14 to which the date is February 25, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Medarex, Inc. included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
Princeton, New Jersey
March 26, 1999
#### GARDNER v. STATE.

No. 19487.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1938.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1938.

George H. Cavanagh, of Houston, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for violation of the Medical Practice Act, Vernon's Ann.P.C. art. 739 et seq.; punishment, a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for one day.

This is a companion case of that of Jack Gardner v. State, 116 S.W.2d 402, this day decided by this court. In that case, the same appellant was convicted of a similar-offense alleged to have been committed on a separate date.

Article 742, P.C., provides, among other things, that each day shall constitute a separate offense. This prosecution is based upon and supported by a similar state of facts as the companion case above referred to, but the prosecution therefor was on a different date. In this case, as in that one, the only contention made by appellant is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to show that he was engaged in the practice of medicine. This was a question for the court, under the law, and was determined adversely to appellant: For a discussion of the facts, we refer to the opinion in the above styled and numbered case.

We deem these facts sufficient to justify * the court’s conclusion of appellant’s guilt.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Our re-examination of the record in the light of the appellant’s motion for rehearing leads us to the conclusion that the proper disposition of the appeal was made upon the original submission. The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00454

- CR

Teron Pratt v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 361st District Court of Brazos County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19

- 01313

- CRF

- 361

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 7, 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ARCADIO MANDEZ,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 36 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.