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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 3 THROUGH
5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR TO DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000925548
<NAME> TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  309,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     80,719
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               473,701
<PP&E>                                       1,064,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                 178,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,041,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          356,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           470
<OTHER-SE>                                     674,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,041,972
<SALES>                                      1,029,252
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,029,252
<CGS>                                          862,776
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  862,776
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,195
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 97,752
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,101
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,651
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    60,704
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08


</TABLE>
#### Strobel v. Moser et al.

1. Evidence: ERROR in admission of: prejudice presumed. Error in the admission of evidence, where objection is made, will he presumed to have been prejudicial to appellant, unless the record negatives such presumption.

*Appeal from Dubuque Oireuit Court.*

Friday, October 29.

ActioN on a promissory note executed by tbe defendant Moser, payable to tbe plaintiff. The defendant indorsed tbe note by writing bis name across tbe back of it, thereby becoming a statutory guarantor, and, as such, a recovery was asked against him. Trial by jury, and judgment for tbe plaintiff, and tbe defendant Eath alone appeals.

*8. M. Polloclt*and *B. F. Lacy,*for appellant.

*FouJce &*Lyon, for appellee.

Seevers, J.

The plaintiff was a witness in bis own behalf, and was asked a question in these words: “Is Moser any relation to tbe defendant Eath?” To this question tbe appellant objected, because tbe evidence sought to be elicited was “ immaterial and incompetent.” The objection was overruled, and tbe witness answered, “Eath is a brother-in-law of Moser.” Counsel for the appellee have failed to indicate for what purpose this evidence was introduced, and we are clearly of the opinion that it is immaterial, and in no respect tended to establish any issue in the case. The only doubt we have is whether there was prejudicial error in admitting it. In *Potter v. Chicago, P. I. & P. R. Co.,*46 Iowa, 399, it is said: “ When there has been error, a presumption of prejudice arises; and, if the record fails to satisfy us that no *127prejudice has been caused, then such error cannot be disregarded. This should not be left in serious doubt.”

The writer is directed by the court to say that the record has been examined with care, and, after taking into consideration the manner in which the case was tried, as shown by the record, the presumption of prejudice has not been removed. This result has been reluctantly reached, for the reason that we are not prepared to say that there is any other error in 'the record.

REVERSED.
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 Quarterly Report of Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James R. Buscemi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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/ James R. Buscemi   
|-----------------------
|James R. Buscemi       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|November 7, 2007
#### McElroy, Appellant, vs. Fritsch, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Eberlein & Eberlein*of Shawano.

For the respondent: *Melvin F. Crowley*of Menasha and *Ray C. Dempsey*of Oshkosh.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1               3548471.04      10314598.78                0       102422401.21
A2                 65985.42        -65985.42                0         2068985.42
AX1              2281292.94                0                0                  0
AX2                51086.46                0                0                  0
B1                277462.79         35633.31                0         8516366.69
B2                184964.38         23754.14                0         5677245.85
B3                115598.69         14845.83                0         3548154.18
B4                159528.12          20487.5                0         4896512.51
B5                 78579.86         10091.66                0         2411908.34
B6                 85640.96         10998.49                0         2628639.62
R                 141805.17                0                0                100


</TABLE>
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.17    
  


 
 

PROMISSORY NOTE    
  



	Amount $100,000.00	 	August 20, 2001





    For
value received, the undersigned, GeoPetro Resources Company ("Payor"), hereby promises to pay on demand to Stuart J. Doshi ("Holder") the principal sum of One Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($100,000.00) with interest from August 20, 2001 at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum, payable upon repayment of the loan. 



	Signed by:
 GeoPetro Resources Company	 	 
	

 J. Chris Steinhauser

Chief Financial Officer	
 	

 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.17


PROMISSORY NOTE
#### Joseph E. Russell, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The Freedman’s Savings Bank of Macon, defendant in error.

When the garnishee failed to answer through a mistake as to his legal duty, and judgment was rendered against him for a much larger sum than he had in hand, the discretion of the Court in setting aside the same, on motion made during the term, will not be controlled.

Garnishment. Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. April Term, 1873.

Joseph E. Russell brought case against John R. Johnson for $300 00 damages, and served a summons of garnishment *576upon the Freedman’s Savings Bank of Macon. At the April term, 1873, the plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant for the amount sued for. Subsequently, no answer having been filed, judgment was rendered against the garnishee. During the same term, the garnishee moved to vacate said judgment, upon the following statement of facts:

In May, 1872, the defendant, Johnson, had deposited in said bank $50 00. He was then under indictment for several felonies. Judge Cole, the then presiding Judge of the Circuit, having been informed of these facts, ordered said bank not to pay to said defendant, or to his order, any portion of said fund. On the day preceding the service of said summons of garnishment, the sheriff of Bibb county levied on said sum of money. The garnishee supposed that the order from the Judge and the levy by the sheriff was a final disposition of said fund,, and, therefore, failed to answer. It now has the $50 00, and is ready to pay it as the Court may direct.

The Court set aside said judgment, and plaintiff excepted.

J. Rutherford, for plaintiff in error.

R. F. Lyon *;*Jackson, Nisbet & Bacon, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a motion to set aside a judgment against a garnishee who had failed to answer. The motion to set aside the judgment was made during the same term of the Court at which it was rendered. The Court, after hearing and considering the evidence in support of the motion to set aside the judgment, passed an order setting it aside, and the plaintiff excepted. The general rule undoubtedly is, that the Courts will not set aside a judgment against a garnishee who fails to answer, unless some good and satisfactory reason be shown therefor, to be judged of by the Court. In looking through the evidence in the record in this case, it is quite evident that the garnishee acted under a mistake as to his legal duty, and not in bad faith, and as his showing was satisfactory to the *577Court which heard it, and the motion to set aside having been made during the term of the Court at which the judgment was rendered, we cannot say that the Court so abused its discretion in setting aside the judgment as will authorize this Court to control it, the more especially when it appears from the record that the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the garnishee for $300 00, when he had only $50 00 in his hands belonging to the defendant.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
<PAGE> 1

Exhibit 99

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 Lexon Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the "Report"), I,
Kenneth J. Eaken, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/S/ Kenneth J. Eaken

Kenneth J. Eaken
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
February 14, 2003
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby 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, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  Date: October 28, 2011/s/ Richard L. Feinstein
Richard L. Feinstein
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CRISOFORO FIDEL MEJIA-PEDRAZA, 

a.k.a. Crisoforo Fidel Pedraza, a.k.a. Javier 

Mejia-Pedazo, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 18-10064 

 18-10065

D.C. Nos. 4:17-cr-01203-JGZ

 4:17-cr-50161-JGZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

In these consolidated appeals, Crisoforo Fidel Mejia-Pedraza appeals his 

guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and 6-month 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-10064 & 18-10065

partially concurrent sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mejia-Pedraza’s counsel has filed a brief stating 

that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of 

record. Mejia-Pedraza has filed a “motion,” which we treat as a pro se 

supplemental brief and motion for appointment of new counsel. No answering 

brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief in these direct appeals.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Mejia-Pedraza’s pro se 

motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
#### John S. Pearson v. District Court of Cass County.

Contempt: liquor nuisance. One who unlawfully sells liquor in a certain place is not in contempt of an injunction to which he was no party, and which restrained another from selling in said place. *Buhl-mon v. Humphrey,*86 Iowa, 597, and *Newcomer v. Bucher,*'56 N. W, Kep. 499, *followed.*

*Qertiorari to the Defendant, Directed to*Walter I. Smith, as Presiding *Judge.*

Reversed.

Friday, February 2, 1894.

*757
      *Boekafellow $ Scott*for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

G-raNGer, C. J.

The return to the writ shows that the petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt for the violation of an injunction issued in an action wherein the state of Iowa was plaintiff and S. J. Applegate was defendant, and in which this petitioner was not a party. The facts in this case bring it clearly within the rule announced in *Buhlman v. Humphrey,*86 Iowa, 597, 53 N. W. Rep. 318, which was since followed in *Newcomer v. Tucker,*56 N. W. Rep. 499. The rule of these cases has been announced since the trial of the contempt proceeding in the district court. Following the rule of those cases, the writ in this proceeding is sustained, and the judgment reversed.
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF WASTE SERVICES, INC.  February 2010
 JURISDICTION OFNAME
    
    INCORPORATION
    
    OPERATING/TRADE NAMESFreedom Recycling Holdings, LLC
    
    Florida
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Omni Waste of Osceola County LLC
    
    Florida
    
    J.E.D. Landfill (expires Dec 31 2013)Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Ram-Pak Compaction Systems Ltd.
    
    Canada
    
    Waste Check (expires Aug 20, 2012)RIP, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    n/aSanford Recycling and Transfer, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)SLD Landfill, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Sun Country Materials, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Taft Recycling, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Waste Services (CA) Inc.
    
    Ontario (Canada)
    
    A & B Portables (expires Feb.21/11)Capital Environmental Resource (expires Feb.22/11)Extra-Provincially
    
    Frith Regional Waste Systems (expires Feb.22/11)registered in:
    
    Johns Cartage Waste Management Services (expiresAlberta
    
    Feb.22/11)British Columbia
    
    Larue Waste & Recycling (expires Feb.22/11)Manitoba
    
    Maverick Waste Systems (expires Feb.22/11)Quebec
    
    McGill Environmental Services (expires Feb.22/11)Saskatchewan
    
    Muskoka Containerized Services (expires Feb.22/11)Waste Services (expires Feb.22/11)WSI (expires Feb.22/11)Turney Disposal (expires July20/11)Nibourg Waste Management (expires Nov.1/11)GAP (expires Oct.31/10)Waste Services of Arizona, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    n/aWaste Services of Florida Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Florida Recycling Services (expires Dec 31 2010)Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Commercial Clean-up Enterprises (expires Dec 31 2013)We Haul of South Florida (expires Dec 31 2013)
OFFICE OF THE A77'ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

.

. ii?.0-COUAUW
. . . . .. i .':. mvowuv- ).. ,. ( ._**.:.**

**.;.**

**“**
**_** as 6he *and Iie~2iwband’ooit?ipy a howe in Texloo, Xem Mezico,.= It doiili.not~appq that'sheand hqr fursband am 0la l mi Rghy

r de i a e n+3

& I ët heí8t a t.e

0r Te n s l

xeept by vlrtw **sr** ,a0 raotbthat she works in pannar county, T0n8, wbioh shhr

ao~@%~as ae s@ibliahilng ag additional

nsfdwe ln.thlsstate..~1 .

We.hare.oaxMully ezaalned the aaue of l&elk flZaenz,'lSB

Si 'II; &d) 8825,

oltkd. by you, but oaimot l BM t&t suoh oase~hdsany ?earing on the problembeforoa+

It 1s true t&t~ths oaurtsbare oonaistent4bald that a dere~?mit~ifith%n the mea&lng of the venue statate might baromgvt than-one ro8idenoo. See,Taylor v. S-4 93 9. IV.109; Beareoa v. wwt, 77 8. W. 944; ad Pit-T Watix Banter cot 0r Teraa~ f. WllZvan, 288 8. Wb 598. is to be pointed out that In eadh or these oases the defendant aotuaJ,ly

had twa or.mre h@e8 in two or more differeat oouatioa ot states and ,%tn'aaoh o'~~whiob

home6 he aotd4 spent a pportl0dor his .ttie. Inthe instantinquirytlum .ls RO oontantiont&t the psraon seekingto be a sot-7 public ha8 or ClelBt8 any haad ln the county 0r FarmerThis departtient~

has egrzelstently

held that 0.~ ie qualif%edto hol& the errloe or notarypubllo in 0alY the oounty df h%s residence, Suoh was held fn an opinionof. ‘I 1

r

,,, i Bebnary ES, 1961, w&Men b$ torney Goneral, to~&nator : cI&r best Hooper, AssletantAtge G. purl. Suoh uaa llkewilciae held fn ~:opinion oi Akguat.9, 1937. written by Joe Emarp, Ageista& Attormo)r':Gsneral, to HonorableEdward Clark, f3eeratax-y of %tate.. ,tt~ the latter opinfon it wae also held that 5 notary publio $oould not have **a** legal residenoe in mori than one oountynithin the ootitemplatlon or the statutee authorizingthe appointment 'of notaries publio." In vjcni

of. the above yxz are respectfully advised that Yrs. %th?r 15. Breazeale Is not a ualified person to **bebow** a notary publio.in.thef&ate of 'hems. 3, YourEl vary tr\lly
**Exhibit 10.18**

 

**DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY**

 

Our directors who are not employed by USA Risk Group (Bermuda), Ltd., the management company, receive an annual retainer of $15,000. They are also paid$700 per half day for each board meeting and $175 per hour for each committee meeting attended during the calendar year. All of our officer positions are filled by directors without any salary or other compensation. Directors are entitled to receivecompensation and reimbursement for expenses incurred in attending board or committee meetings or when otherwise acting on our behalf. The chairman of the board, as well as the chairman of each committee, receive an additional annual retainer of$5,000.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           9
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            324,767
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            322,106
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                        0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    22,577,008
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         22,577,008
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           22,403,003
<LOANS>                                        23,842,673
<ALLOWANCE>                                       389,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 49,394,731
<DEPOSITS>                                     34,359,495
<SHORT-TERM>                                    4,700,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               500,666
<LONG-TERM>                                     2,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            5,151
<OTHER-SE>                                      7,829,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 49,394,731
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 1,047,389
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 739,879
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                        0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                1,787,268
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                775,322
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                880,118
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             907,150
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                         472
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                      0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   852,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   155,964
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        101,864
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      101,864
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       3.90
<LOANS-NON>                                       626,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                            0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  918,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   779,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  385,602
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                           0
<RECOVERIES>                                        4,188
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 389,790
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           275,672
        


</TABLE>