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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,006,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,589,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,355,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   548,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,679,000
<PP&E>                                       4,988,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,511,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,436,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,432,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,357,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,436,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,001,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,143,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             125,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                209,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    97,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            112,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
#### Z. F. LONG, Sheriff, v. JOHN A. McLEAN and another.

*Arrest and Bail.*

The provision of the constitution (Art. I, § 16) prohibiting “imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud,” has no application to actions for tort; it is confined to causes of action arising *ex contractu.*

*(Moore*v. *Green,*73 N. C., 394, cited and approved).

MOTION to vacate an order of arrest heard at Fall Term, 1881, of Richmond Superior Court, before *Graves, J.*

The action is brought against the defendants, McLean *&*Leach, partners in trade, and the plaintiff alleges that certain executions were delivered to him, as sheriff, which he levied upon several hundred pounds of seed cotton, as the property of the judgment debtor, and took the same into his possession; that after'the levy, the defendants wrongfully and unlawfully took a portion of said cotton and converted it to their use, and that he believes the defendants have disposed of the same, whereby he has sustained a loss of four hundred dollars.

These are the facts set out in the plaintiff’s affidavit, and upon which the order of arrest was made. The motion to vacate the order being refused, the defendant appealed.

*Messrs. J. D. Shaw*and *MeNeill & McNeill,*for'plaintiff.

*Messrs. Burwell, Walker & Tillett*and *Rowland & McLean,*for defendant.

*4Ruffin, J.

The summons in this case was served upon the defendant, Leach, alone. The action is for the wrongful conversion of personal property; Accompanying the summons was an order of arrest, under which the defendant was held to bail. At the return term, he moved to vacate the order upon the ground that the affidavit, on which it was based, failed to allege fraud, on the part of the defendant, in taking the goods; and upon his motion being overruled, he appealed to this court.

The fallacy of the defendant’s argument is in supposing that the provision of the constitution, which prohibits “imprisonment for debt, except in eases of fraud,” has any application to actions for *tort.*In *Moore*v. *Green,*73 N. C., 394, the whole ground was gone over and thoroughly discussed, and it was solemnly resolved that the prohibition — and indeed the provisions of the entire section — was intended to apply only to causes of action arising *ex contractu.*To give it any other construction, it was said, would be to withdraw a wholesome check on violence and wrong, and would tend to license disorders and law-breaking, incompatible with the peace and welfare of society.

We can add nothing to what is there said, except to call attention to the fact, that similar provisions in the constitutions of other states have received a like construction. *Harris*v. *Bridgers,*57 Ga., 407; *McCook*v. *State,*23 Ind., 127; *Lathrop*v. *Singer,*39 Barb. (N. Y.), 396; *People*v. *Cotten,*14 Ill., 414.

No error. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 559 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 111
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 559

  To designate the Federal building located at 300 East 8th Street in 
     Austin, Texas, as the ``J.J. `Jake' Pickle Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 1999

  Mr. Gramm (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

                              May 12, 1999

               Reported by Mr. Chafee, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Federal building located at 300 East 8th Street in 
     Austin, Texas, as the ``J.J. `Jake' Pickle Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal Building located at 300 East 8th Street in Austin, 
Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``J.J. `Jake' Pickle 
Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``J.J. `Jake' Pickle 
Federal Building''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 111

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 559

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate the Federal building located at 300 East 8th Street in 
     Austin, Texas, as the ``J.J. `Jake' Pickle Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 12, 1999

                       Reported without amendment
```
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

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

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
B1                186162.01         35676.79                0          4707323.2
B2                214029.42         41017.42                0         5411982.59
B3                 65115.51         12478.99                0         1646521.02
B4                  37248.1          7138.37                0          941861.63
B5                 18604.44          3565.42                0          470434.58
B6                 37279.47          3470.79          3673.58          942654.42
I_A1             1121336.08       4042707.03                0        25805292.99
I_AP                      0           706.64                0           25471.09
II_A1            2515138.04      16238576.78                0        51261423.22
II_A2             163333.31                0                0            4000000
II_A3             194734.19                0                0            4769000
II_A4            1179328.64                0                0           28881517
II_A5             802500.75       3155174.96                0        17645211.05
II_A6                     0        969323.23                0         5923673.77
II_A7            1306075.96                0                0           31985534
II_A8            1049817.36       6777973.76                0        21396492.23
II_AP                     0             20.8                0            3433.69
II_AR                104.13              100                0                  0


</TABLE>
#### Eckman, by Guardian *ad litem,*and another, Appellants, vs. The Milwaukee Electric Railway & Transport Company, Respondent.

For the appellants: *Alfred E. La France*of Racine.

For the respondent: *Simmons, Walker, Wratten & Sporer*of Racine.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 347

To redesignate the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota,

as the ‘‘Hubert H. Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 3, 1999

Mr. GRAMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To redesignate the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness,

Minnesota, as the ‘‘Hubert H. Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF BOUNDARY WATERS

4 CANOE AREA WILDERNESS, MINNESOTA.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—In recognition of Senator Hubert

6 H. Humphrey’s commitment to the preservation of Min7 nesota’s natural resources and dedication to ensuring pub8 lic access to those resources through establishment of the

9 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota, by

10 Public Law 95–495 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 92 Stat. 1649),
2

•S 347 IS

1 the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness shall be

2 known and designated as the ‘‘Hubert H. Humphrey

3 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness’’.

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the Boundary

6 Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota, shall be

7 deemed to be a reference to the Hubert H. Humphrey

8 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 380 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 380

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 1999

        Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
              To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

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

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL AWARD ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1999.

    (a) Change of Annual Reporting Date.--Section 3(e) of the 
Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 802(e)) is amended in the first 
sentence by striking ``April 1'' and inserting ``June 1''.
    (b) Membership Requirements.--Section 4(a)(1) of the Congressional 
Award Act (2 U.S.C. 803(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraphs (A) and (D), by striking ``member of 
        the Congressional Award Association'' and inserting ``recipient 
        of the Congressional Award'' ; and
            (2) in subparagraphs (B) and (C), by striking 
        ``representative of a local Congressional Award Council'' and 
        inserting ``a local Congressional Award program volunteer''.
    (c) Extension of Requirements Regarding Financial Operations of 
Congressional Award Program; Noncompliance With Requirements.--Section 
5(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 804(c)(2)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``and 1998'' and inserting ``1998, 1999, 2000, 
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004''.
    (d) Termination.--Section 9 of the Congressional Award Act (2 
U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ``October 1, 1999'' and inserting 
``October 1, 2004''.

            Passed the Senate April 13, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 32.1




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
ofAdex Media,
Inc.. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Scott Rewick, Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to 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.






Date:November14, 2008




/s/Scott
  RewickScott
  RewickChief Executive Officer (Principal
      Executive Officer)








[A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided toAdex Media, Inc.and will be retained byAdex Media, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### DeCanter, Respondent, vs. Home Mutual Casualty Company, Appellant.

*January 13*

April *13, 1943.*

*Lehner & Lehner*and *Adolph P. Lehner,*all of Oconto Falls, and *Edward I. Byrne*of Appleton, for the appellant.

*O’Melia & Kaye*of Rhinelander, for the respondent.

*581Per Curiam.

This case was submitted on briefs and affirmed without opinion on February 9, 1943. The motion for rehearing is denied in the original cause of action.

On pages 2 and 3 of appellant’s brief the questions involved in the appeal are set forth and no reference is made to the counterclaim or the determination of this question by the lower court. We find that it is mentioned at the end of appellant’s brief, and upon examination of the record conclude that appellant is entitled to recover upon the counterclaim for damages in the sum of $530; and is entitled to a setoff for that amount against the sum of $5,000 for which the court ordered judgment for plaintiff upon the verdict. Consequently the judgment must be modified by reducing the net amount of plaintiff’s recovery to the sum of $4,468 and the costs taxed at $252.65. Therefore the mandate is vacated and the following mandate entered:

Mandate vacated; and judgment modified as stated in the opinion and affirmed as modified. Neither party to have costs, disbursements or attorney’s fees on the appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,429,460
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,630,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 22,760,236
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       6,410,837
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         6,506,336
<LOANS>                                     90,634,788
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,454,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,270,019
<DEPOSITS>                                 119,363,954
<SHORT-TERM>                                   701,447
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,650,637
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,595,367
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,684,560
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,274,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             139,270,019
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,649,040
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              866,130
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                74,989
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,590,160
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,302,228
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,397,685
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,192,474
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  150,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,775
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,440,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,212,371
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     849,726
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   849,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.07
<LOANS-NON>                                    706,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    24,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,383,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  219,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   141,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,455,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,455,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------




                    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, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:

The Annual Report of Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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/ DAVID C. KAHN
--------------------------
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
NOVEMBER 23, 2005
#### Andrew T. Finney, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Tommey & Stewart, defendants in error.

Two cases were pending between tbe same parties. They were submitted together to the Court upon an agreed statement of facts. The Court dismissed one case and allowed a judgment to be taken in the other. The plaintiffs excepted to said judgment, and brought the same for review to this Court, and obtained a reversal. The legal effect of this reversal was to leave no judgment in the Superior Court, and to place the parties in the same position in which they were before the submission.

Judgments. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1872.

This is the second time this case has been before the Supreme Court: See 45 *Georgia Reports,*155.

For the facts, see the decision.

*141L. J. Winn, for plaintiff in error.

Hill & Candler, for defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

The error complained of in this case is that the Court below overruled the defendant’s plea in bar of the plaintiff’s suit and ordered the same to be stricken. It appears from the record that the plaintiffs had sold goods to the defendant, and had instituted a suit on a part of the account in a Justices’ Court, (to-wit,) for the sum of $88 47, and obtained judgment therefor, from which judgment an appeal was taken to the Superior Court. It also appears that the plaintiffs subsequently instituted suit'against the defendant in the Superior Court for the balance of their account, to-wit: for the sum of $121 37. Both cases were pending in the Superior Court, the one on the appeal, the other on the common law docket. The defendant filed a plea in abatement of the pendency of a former suit for the same account to the last action instituted in the Superior Court, but did not file it at the first term of the Court. The parties entered into an agreement to submit the two cases together to the decision of the Court upon au agreed statement of facts. On hearing and considering the two cases, as submitted by the parties on the agreed statement of facts, the Court dismissed the suit instituted in the Superior Court for the recovery of that portion of the account included therein, and allowed a judgment to be taken in the other case, which is now pleaded in bar. From that judgment of the Court the plaintiffs sued out a writ of error to this Court, and upon the hearing thereof the judgment of the Court below was reversed, the legal effect of which was to place the two cases exactly in the same position as they were when submitted to the judgment of the Court by the agreement of the parties. There was no final judgment then which the defendant could have pleaded in bar of the plaintiff’s action. The judgment of the Court covered both cases submitted under the agreement, and when that judgment was re*142versed there was no judgment in existence to be pleaded in bar, and if one had been entered up in the appeal case the judgment of reversal by this Court vacated it. There was no error in striking the defendant’s plea in bar on the statement of facts disclosed by the record.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed..