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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             471
<SECURITIES>                                      3737
<RECEIVABLES>                                    20186
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (1706)
<INVENTORY>                                      45900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 75659
<PP&E>                                           29726
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (16896)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  117017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            66409
<BONDS>                                          10000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                       16373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    117017
<SALES>                                           1624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1624
<CGS>                                              843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    94
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1021
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (6187)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2227
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3960)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.36

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$150,000                                                       March 27, 2003


     FOR VALUE  RECEIVED,  the  undersigned,  Cedric  Kushner  Promotions,  Inc.
("Cedric  Kushner  Promotions")  hereby  promises  to pay to the order of Robert
Rudman  ("Rudman")  the  principal  sum of ONE HUNDRED  FIFTY  THOUSAND  DOLLARS
($150,000)  in lawful  money of the  United  States of  America  in  immediately
available funds on or before August 1, 2003 (the "Maturity Date").

     Cedric Kushner  Promotions  agrees to pay a fee (the "Fee") to Rudman equal
to $15,000 on the Maturity Date, such Fee to represent  reimbursement  for legal
and administrative expenses as well as interest on the principal amount.

     Cedric Kushner  Promotions  hereby waives diligence,  presentment,  demand,
protest and notice of any kind  whatsoever.  The nonexercise by Rudman of any of
its rights  hereunder in any  particular  instance shall not constitute a waiver
thereof in that or any subsequent instance.  Cedric Kushner Promotions shall pay
on demand  all  reasonable  out-of-pocket  costs  and  expenses  of  collection,
including  reasonable attorney fees incurred or paid by Rudman in enforcing this
Promissory Note.

     This  Promissory Note shall be construed in accordance with and governed by
the laws of the State of New York. Cedric Kushner  Promotions hereby irrevocably
(i) agrees that any litigation,  action or proceeding arising out of or relating
to this  Promissory  Note may be instituted in any state or federal court in the
State of New York and (ii) waives any  objection  which it may have to the venue
of any such litigation, action or proceeding.

     This  Promissory  Note  cannot be modified  except by a written  instrument
signed by each of Cedric Kushner Promotions and Rudman.

CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, INC.

By: ______________________
Name:
Title:
##### 



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     Harrington West Financial Group, Inc./s/ Craig J. CernyCraig J. CernyChief Executive Officer/s/ William W. Phillips, jr.William W. Phillips, Jr.President, Chief Operating Officer/s/ Kerril SteeleKerril SteeleChief Financial Officer A signed original 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.
 126
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3136 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3136

 For the relief of Edwardo Reyes, Dianelita Reyes, and their children, 
    Susy Damaris Reyes, Danny Daniel Reyes, and Brandon Neil Reyes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 28 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

  Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 For the relief of Edwardo Reyes, Dianelita Reyes, and their children, 
    Susy Damaris Reyes, Danny Daniel Reyes, and Brandon Neil Reyes.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Edwardo Reyes, 
Dianelita Reyes, and their children, Susy Damaris Reyes, Danny Daniel 
Reyes, and Brandon Neil Reyes shall be held and considered to have been 
lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of 
the date of enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa 
fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Edwardo Reyes, 
Dianelita Reyes, and their children, Susy Damaris Reyes, Danny Daniel 
Reyes, and Brandon Neil Reyes, as provided in this Act, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate 
number during the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant 
visas available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under 
section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1153(a)).

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN 
              RELATIVES.

    The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Edwardo Reyes and 
Dianelita Reyes shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 
any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 16, 2015

N o. 04

- 13

- 00888

- CV

SPECIALTY SELECT CARE CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO LLC

d/b/a Casa Rio Healthcare and Rehabilitation,

Appellant

v.

Jose FLORES , as next friend of Julie Flores,

Appellee s

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 04577

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On March 19, 2014, this court granted a ppellant ’s motion to abate th is appeal because

one of the issues presented in the appeal wa s the same issue pending in petitions for review filed

in Williamsburg Care Co. L.P. v. Acosta , 406 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2013, pet.

filed), Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Lira , 407 S .W.3d 810 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2013,

pet. filed), and Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Perez , 406 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. App.

— San

Antonio 2013, pet. filed). Our order stated that, f or administrative purposes, th is appeal w ould

be treated as a closed case, unle ss and until appellant files a motion requesting its reinstatement

following the Texas Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue

. Finally, our order denied as moot

a ppellant’s motion for extension of time to file a reply brief.

On March 6, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court decided the issues raised in Acosta

, Lira

, and Perez

. On June 11, 2015, appellant filed a Motion to Lift Abatement and Reinstate Appeal.

The motion is GRANTED.

Appellant’s reply brief is due June 30, 2015.It is so ORDERED on June 16 , 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# L_2012259DE.01000701.xml

| 27.9.2012 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 259/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2012

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 259/7

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 36/2012 des Rates vom 18. Januar 2012 über restriktive Maßnahmen angesichts der Lage in Syrien und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 442/2011

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 16 vom 19. Januar 2012
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 16 vom 19. Januar 2012

Seite 5, Artikel 9 Buchstabe a:

anstatt:

„... im Zusammenhang mit der in Anhang VI aufgeführten Ausrüstung und Technologie oder im Zusammenhang mit der Bereitstellung, Herstellung, Wartung und Verwendung der in Anhang V aufgeführten Güter zu erbringen;“

muss es heißen:

„... im Zusammenhang mit der in Anhang VI aufgeführten Ausrüstung und Technologie oder im Zusammenhang mit der Bereitstellung, Herstellung, Wartung und Verwendung der in Anhang VI aufgeführten Güter zu erbringen;“.

---
Exhibit 32.1Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 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 on Form 10-Q
of Advant-e Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), the undersigned, Jason K. Wadzinski, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Jason K. Wadzinski 
|                         |  |  |  |     |  | Jason K. Wadzinski     
|                         |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1
 S1 Subsidiaries
    
    State/Jurisdiction of OrganizationFinancial Information Consulting Services Group N.V.
    
    BelgiumMosaic
Software Holdings, Ltd.
    
    United KingdomPostilion,
Inc.
    
    FloridaPostilion International Limited
    
    United KingdomPostilion
International (Pty), Ltd.
    
    South AfricaRegency
Systems, Inc.
    
    TexasS1, Inc.
    
    KentuckyS1 Belgium N.V.
    
    BelgiumS1 Corporation (S) PTE Limited
    
    SingaporeS1 Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyS1 Enterprise, Inc.
    
    DelawareS1
Enterprise Europe, Ltd.
    
    United KingdomS1 Europe
Holdings C.V.A.
    
    BelgiumS1 Greater China Limited
    
    Hong KongS1 Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareS1 Ireland
Ltd.
    
    IrelandS1 Real Estate Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareS1 Services
India Pvt. Ltd.
    
    IndiaS1 Tech
Services, Ltd.
    
    ThailandSoftware Dynamics, Incorporated
    
    CaliforniaTemple Acquisition Corporation
    
    DelawareX/Net
Associates, Inc.
    
    New York
#### William Durkee, Appellant, v. Michael Schultz.

Sales: countermanding order before approval. Where a written order for a machine is executed and delivered to an agent, which provides that the same is subject to the approval of the' principal, it may he countermanded at any time before its acceptance and notice to the purchases.

*Appeal from Shelby District Court.*— IIoN. N. W. Macy, ■ Judge.

Tuesday, January 26, 1904.

Ih 1901 the plaintiff was the local agent at Panama, Iowa, of the Plano Manufacturing Company, of Chicago, Ill. April 13th of that year the defendant signed a written order for a Plano binder, and delivered it to one Campbell, who was a canvasser sent out by the Plano people to assist the plaintiff. This order was taken on one of the blanks furnished by the company, and provided that it was subject to *411their approval in Chicago. Campbell delivered the order to tbe plaintiff on the same day that it was taken, and on the same day the plaintiff mailed it to the company. The binder •was to be delivered at Panama on or about the 1st day of July following. About the 15th of June the defendant notified both the plaintiff and the company that he countermanded the order, and would not accept the machine. At this time no acceptance or approval of the order by the company had been made, so far as the record shows. The court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

*•*— Affirmed.

*Cullison & Robinson*for appellant.

*Byers & Lockwood*for appellee.

SheRwiN, J.

There was no meeting of the minds of the parties, and hence there could be no contract until the approval of the order by the Plano Manufacturing Company; consequently the defendant might withdraw the order at any time before there had been an acceptance thereof which was communicated to him. *Machine Co. v. Richardson,*89 Iowa, *525; Manufacturing Co. v. Perkins & Son,*97 Iowa, 607. That he withdrew the order before he had received any notice of its acceptance or approval is undisputed. The appellant contends, however, that he had authority to approve it for the company, and that he did so. approve it. But his only authority to act for the company was embodied in a written contract between them, from which it affirmatively appears that he had no such authority. This contract expressly provided that in making sales of machines “he should have a. written order signed by each purchaser on blanks furnished by the company,” and the order blanks so furnished contained the condition that the order was subject to the company’s approval at Chicago. Suppose the plaintiff himself had taken the order; would it be contended that no further approval was necessary to make it binding on the company? We think not. Still, if his contention is cor*412rect, the condition would be meaningless in such circumstances, because, when he personally took an order, he necessarily approved it. *McCormick H. M. Co. v. Markert,*107 Iowa, 340, is not such a case as this.

The judgment is aeelrMed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Loudeye Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence J. Madden.,
President, Digital Media Solutions of the Company, certify, in my capacity as
the Company's principal financial officer and principal accounting officer,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
Company as of the date of the financial statements contained therein.



       /s/ Lawrence J. Madden
------------------------------------------
Lawrence J. Madden
President, Digital Media Solutions
March 31, 2005

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Loudeye Corp. and will be retained by Loudeye Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fairchild International Corporation
                          595 Hornby Street, Suite 603
                   Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 1A4 Canada
                                  604-646-5614

                                  May 28, 2002


Praxis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
#600 - 595 Hornby Street
Vancouver, BC  V6C 1A4

Gentlemen:

This letter outlines our agreement pertaining to the Termination of License And
Research & Development Agreement Dated the 28th of February, 2001 (the
"Termination Agreement") and the amendment to the Termination Agreement dated
January 15, 2002 (the "First Amendment").

In the Termination Agreement, Fairchild and Praxis had agreed that Praxis would
retain those common shares of Fairchild issued to Praxis under the terms of the
original license agreement; and that Praxis would pay to Fairchild 30% of Net
Revenues from sales of the agents in the arthritis and topical treatment of
dermal wrinkles to a maximum of $250,000 over the first three years of sales
(the "Royalty Obligation").

In the First Amendment, Fairchild and Praxis agreed that (1) Praxis would place
its Fairchild shares (the "Shares") in a voluntary pooling arrangement whereby
an amount equal to 1% of the total number of Fairchild's outstanding shares
would be released every three months to Praxis, and (2) so long as Praxis paid
Fairchild 66.6% of the proceeds from the sale of the Shares until US$ 175,000
had been paid, Fairchild would deem that payment to be in full and complete
satisfaction of the Royalty Obligation described above.

Fairchild and Praxis now further amend the Termination Agreement and the First
Amendment as follows:

1.       The Shares need not be placed in a voluntary pooling arrangement.

2.       Praxis shall comply with all of the requirements for the resale of the
         Shares under Rule 144 of the United States Securities Act of 1933.

3.       So long as Praxis has paid Fairchild a total of US$175,000 by May 31,
         2003, such payment shall be deemed to be in full and complete
         satisfaction of the Royalty Obligation described above.

Please sign below to indicate your agreement and acceptance of this amendment to
the Termination Agreement and First Amendment.

FAIRCHILD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

By:      /S/ BYRON COX
   --------------------------------------------------
      Byron Cox, Secretary

Agreed to and accepted this 28th day of May, 2002.
PRAXIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

By:      /S/ ROBERT SMART
   -----------------------------------------
      Robert Smart, Secretary
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 19, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133673 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan

MICHIGAN REHABILITATI ON CLINIC, INC., P.C., and DR. JAMES NIKOLOVSKI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133673 COA: 263835 Oakland CC: 2003-047671-NF AUTO CLUB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 4, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question pr esented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings or dered by the Court of Appeals.

p1016 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 19, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer  Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)  of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Advanstar, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:



|By: | /s/JOSEPH LOGGIAJoseph Loggia
Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------- |  | 

Date:
June 28, 2005

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32



              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  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Aviation General,
Incorporated  and  Subsidiaries.  (the  "Company")  for  the  fiscal  year ended
December  31,  2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date  hereof  (the "Report"), the undersigned President and Principal Accounting
and  Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section 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  results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  March  24,  2004


                                    /s/  Wirt  D.  Walker  III
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Wirt  D.  Walker  III
                                    Director,  Chairman  of  the  Board,
                                      and  Chief  Executive  Officer,
                                         President  and  Treasurer

                                    /s/  Glenn  A.  Jackson
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Glenn  A.  Jackson
                                    Chief  Financial  Officer
Order entered September 7 , 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01286

- CV

PETER BEASLEY, Appellant

V.

SOCIETY OF INFORMATI ON MANAGEMENT, DALLA S AREA CHAPTER, Ap pellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 03141



### O RDER

Appellant’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is DENIED

.

/s/ LANA MYERS

PRESIDING JUSTICE