alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DEC 31, 1996 AND AS OF DEC 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925664
<NAME> WOODLAKE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          371
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,601)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  85
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (85)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (85)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (85)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
#### GEORGE W. PARSONS *vs.*WILLOUGHBY McBRIDE.

Every Court has the power to amend its own records, so as to make them conformable to the truth.

MotioN to amend a record, beard before Bailey, J., at the Fall Term, 1856, of Currituck Superior Court.

The motion was first made in the County Court of Curri-tuck, (on a notice to the defendant,) to supply a lost récord. It appeared that a petition had been filed in the County Court of Currituck for a partition of the lands of Caleb T. Wilson, dec’d. ; that an order had been made on said petition for the appointment of commissioners, who made a report to August term, 1820, of said Court, under their hands and seals, stating the partition and appropriation among the heirs of the said Caleb, of his real estate; and that the said report and appropriation had been lost from among the records of the said Court. A copy of this paper was produced and proved to the satisfaction of the Court, whereupon, the Court allowed the amendment asked, to wit, that the copy produced be filed in the cause as a part of the proceedings thereof; and that the order of confirmation be also amended, so as to read, c£ Report made and confirmed, and ordered to be certified, enrolled and registered, and that the same be so endorsed on the amended recordfrom which order the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.

In the Superior Court the motion to amend was allowed, and the defendant appealed to this Court.

It was urged by the defendant’s counsel here, that it did not appear that the plaintiff had any interest in the question, and, therefore, had no right to make the motion to amend.

*Smith*-and *Pool,*for plaintiff.

*Heath,*for defendant.

Nash, C. J.

So many decisions have been made by this *100Court affirming the power of every Court to amend its own records, so as to make them conformable to the truth, that we had hoped that the question was at rest. The more recent cases are the following : *Clayton*v. *Liverman,*7 Ire. Rep. 92, made in 1846 ; *Bradhurst v. Pearson,*10 Ire. Rep. 55, made in 1849. In this case it is said, *“*It has been repeatedly decided that every Court has the power to amend its own records, so as to make them speak the truth, and that we have no right to interfere with the use of their discretionary power.” *Green*v. *Cole,*13 Ire. Rep. 425, in 1852 ; *Freeman*v. *Moses,*Bus. Rep. 287, in 1853. An exception to the general rule is established by the latter, which is, where the amendment is denied upon the ground that the Court has not power to grant it; there, if the power to act is possessed, and the refusal to act is upon that ground, it is error in law, and this Court will interfere.

It was objected that the plaintiff had no interest in the matter. This is unimportant.

It was brought to the notice of the Court that one of its records, or an important part of it, was lost. The Court has the power, *ex mero motu,*upon being satisfied of the fact, to allow the copyto be filed. *County Court*v. *Bissell,*2 Jones’ Rep. 387.

Per, Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
AFS-13-482-E

October 25, 2013

 Exemption No. 10521A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0824

Mr. Tim McAdams

Manager

American Eurocopter Flight Simulation Center

2701 North Forum Drive

Grand Prairie, TX 76034

Dear Mr. McAdams:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 10521. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated July 24, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of American Eurocopter Flight Simulation Center (AEFSC) for an extension of 

Exemption No.10521. That exemption from part 60, Appendix C, Table C2A, 4.b.3 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) permits a geometric error of up to 12 degrees 

between the image generator (IG) eye point and the pilot eye point for the Eurocopter (EC) 

175 Level D full flight simulator (FFS).

In your petition you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AEFSC.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10521 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, 

American Eurocopter Flight Simulation Center is granted an exemption from 14 CFR part 60, 

Continuous Field-of-View tests stated in Table C2A, paragraph 4.b.3 to the extent necessary 

to allow AEFSC to manufacture and obtain FAA qualification of its level D FSTD. This 

grant of exemption is subject to the following conditions and limitations:

Conditions and Limitations

1. A geometric error of no greater than 12° is allowed subject to evaluation by a National 

Simulator Program (NSP) Aviation Safety Inspector by conducting ground and flight 

maneuvers to validate the geometric/parallax error does not negatively affect qualified 

training, testing, or checking tasks.

2. If the objective/subjective testing is successful, the NSP Inspector will make a 

recommendation to the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) for final 

approval.

3. Any training maneuver found to not be subjectively acceptable due to 

geometric/parallax error will be task restricted on the FSTD’s Statement of 

Qualification as determined appropriate by the NSPM.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10521 to May 31, 2015, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
----

----

| 1. | the      annual report on Form 10-K of Falcon Ridge Development Inc., for the      period ended September 30, 2008 (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 Falcon      Ridge Development Inc.,. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                              |                         |                          |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                              |                         |
|                              |                         |                          |
| Dated: January      13, 2008 |                         | /s/ Fred      M. Montano |
|                              | Fred      M. Montano,        |
|                              | Chief      Executive Officer |

----

----
#### In the matter of B. F. MOORE and others.

In the matter of *B. F. Moore and others,*decided at June Term 1869, the following order was made:

Upon the argument in *Ex parte Biggs*at this term, the power of the Court to strike from the list of Attorneys, any unworthy member having been conceded,

Ordered, That the rule upon the signing of what is called a solemn protest of the members of the Bar of the State of North Carolina,” made at June Term 1869, be discharged.

Per Curiam.

Rule discharged.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENTS  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND AS OF JUNE 30, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925664
<NAME> WOODLAKE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               42
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          766
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  42
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  29
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (29)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                 OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Fantatech, Inc. (the
"Company")  for  the  quarterly  period  ended  March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly 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 to the best of his knowledge:

(1)  The  Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  May 12, 2006                               By: /s/ GARY  LUI
                                                      --------------------------
                                                        Gary Lui
                                                        Chief Financial  Officer


A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document  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.
#### Frank P. Andrews, Appellee, v. James Murray, Appellant.

Appeal: affirmance.

*Appeal from Woodbury District Court.*— Hon. C. H. Lewis, Judge

Tuesday, May 24, 1892.

*Davis, Gantt $• Keafley,*for appellant.

*George Stichney,*for appellee.

*737Given, J.

The questions involved in this appeal are identical with those eonsided in the first paragraph of the opinion in the ease of *Wood v. Murray,*ante, page 505. For the reasons given in that opinion the judgment of the district court herein is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32




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-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report” ), I, Hyung Soon Lee,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 and
belief:





(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/Hyung Soon Lee


Hyung
Soon Lee


Principal
Executive Officer


Principal
Financial Officer


Date: May
4, 2009
No. 68—2182.

#### Daniel H. Tolman v. Charles W. Requa.

This was a suit in assumpsit, brought by Daniel H. Tolman against Charles W. Requa, upon a contract of warranty. A trial was had before the court below without a jury, resulting in a finding and judgment for the defendant. Ho questions of law were raised at the trial, and the only ground upon which we are now asked to reverse the judgment is, that it is unsupported by the evidence. The guaranty in question is one indorsed upon a promissory note, executed by one Allen, payable to the order of the defendant. In addition to a plea of non-assumpsit, the defendant filed two special pleas, somewhat inartificially drawn, and apparently intended as pleas of fraud and circumvention in obtaining the execution of the note and guaranty. While it is very clear that the facts pleaded do not amount to fraud and circumvention in obtaining the execution of said instruments, the court is of opinion that they are sufficient to show fraud in the consideration "as well as want of consideration, and that sufficient facts are stated to make such defenses available against an assignee of the note. The evidence is conflicting, and in some respects confused and uncertain, but the court is of opinion it tended to support the defenses made by the pleas, and warranted the court below in finding the issues for the defendant.

Judge below, Sidney Smith.

Attorneys, for appellant, Mr. John C. Riohbebg ;

for appellee, Messrs. Teaming & Thompson.

Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.

Opinion Per Curiam.
OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002




In
      connection with the filing by Tix Corporation (the “Company”) of its Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the
      “Quarterly Report”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Matthew
      Natalizio, 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
      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





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.


Date:
                May 20, 2008
            By:
            /s/MATTHEW
                NATALIZIOMatthew
                NatalizioChief
                Financial Officer
#### JOHN COLEY *Executor of*SCARBORO SRIVEY *vs.*EDMUND BALLANCE *and others.*

The general rule is that property given to legatees, who die in the lifetime of the testator, falls into the residue.

If property be given to A until B, an infant, arrives at the age of 21, and then to B, and B dies under the age of 21, in the lifetime of the testator, A has an estate in it until B would have teen 21, if ho bad lived.

If property be given to two as joint tenants, and one die in the lifetime of the testator, by the operation of our aefabolishing survivorship in joint tenancy, his share falls into the residue.

This cause was removed from the Court of Equity lor Wayne county to this Court for trial. •'

The bill alleges that Scarborough Spivey died in April, 1864, having made her will, of which the plaintiff was appointed executor, and that he has qualified as such.

The material parts of the will are as follows :

1st. *“*I give and devise to Zilpha Ballance one negro woman named Harriet, to her and her heirs forever/’ 2nd. *“*I give and devise to Ruffin Ballance all the cattle that I have at my death, and their increase, till his son, Tawboro Ballance, arrives at the age of twenty-one years old ; and then 1 give and devise all -the cattle, and their increase above-named, to his son, Tawboro Ballance, and his heirs forever.”

3rd. “ I give and devise to Francis Allgood Ballance and Allgood Francis Ballance, two beds and bedsteads, to them and their heirs forever.

4th. ‘‘I give and devise to Ruffin Ballance and Aaron Ballance the residue of my property., of every description,not above mentioned, to them and their heirs forever.

*90The legatees, Zilpha Ballanee, Tawboro Ballanee, and .Francis Allgood Ballanee, died in the lifetime of the testatrix. . The plaintiff prays the advice of the Court as to the effept of these bequests, and the death of the legatees last above named. The answers admit the truth of the facts stated in the bill, and the cause was set for hearing on the bill and answers.

*Strong*for the plaintiff.1

No counsel in this Court for the defendants.

PearsoN, C. J.

.All of the property embraced in the legacies which lapsed by the death of the legatees, falls into the residue. This is the general rule, and there is nothing to take this case out of its application.

2. The cattle and increase fall into the residue, subject to the estate of Ruffin Ballanee, until Tawboro would have been 21 years old, if he had lived.’

3. The interest of Francis Allgood Ballanee in the beds and bedsteads, does not survive, but falls into' the residue. The effect of the act of the Legislature, abolish-■ ing survivorship among joint tenants, is to change the rule, which had, in bequests of this kind, .allowed the whole to pass to the surviving legatee.

Decree according to this opinion ; costs to be paid by the executor out of the estate.
#### *SAM’L H. PERRY v. W. T. ADAMS and wife.

Appeal— *Transcript.*

Where both parties appeal, a transcript of the record must be sent up breach appellant, and the appeals must be docketed separately, as distinct cases. This rule cannot be waived by consent of counsel, and unless it is done, the case will not be heard.

*(Devereux*v. *Burgwyn,*11 Ired., 490; *Morrison*v. *Cornelius,*63 N. C., 346; cited and approved).

Civil ACTION, tried before *Clark, Judge,*at January Term, 1886, of Granville Superior Court.

Both parties appealed from the judgment in the Court-below, but only one transcript of the record, which contained the case stated on appeal of both appellants, was sent-to this Court.

*Messrs. John Devereux, Jr., E. C. Smith*and *Jos. B. Batchelor,.*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. D. G. Fowle,*for the defendants.

*

Justice Davis, having been of couusel, did not sit on the hearing of this case;

Merrimon, J.

In this case both the plaintiff and defendants appealed to this Court. The appeals are distinct— one is no part of, nor is it dependent upon the other in any respect, and the long settled rule of practice in such cases'has been, that each appeal must come to this Court in fact— as it does in contemplation of law — separately, and separate-transcripts of the record must be filed in this Court. The records of two such appeals are not wholly the same, nor is-so much of the record as is peculiar to one, necessary to, or properly a part of that of the other. *Devereux*v. *Burgwyn,*11 Ired., *490; Morrison*v. *Cornelius,*63 N. C., 346.

*348The purpose of the rule is, to prevent the confusion that would ordinarily result from blending two appeals — two distinct cases — in one, as to the cause of procedure and practice, and in respect to the allowance and taxing of the costs. The rule has been found necessary and wholesome, and must be upheld in all cases. It concerns the Court as well ■as litigants, and cannot be waived by consent of counsel.

In such cases, the clerk of the Superior Court must send up each appeal by itself, and hence, two distinct transcripts of so much of the record as applies to each.

In this case there is but one transcript. Whose is it? Is it that of the plaintiff or defendant? We decline to attempt to decide the questions intended to be presented for our decision, until the appeals shall be separated and each assigned its proper place on the docket, and to this end there must he a transcript for each.

Let the case be continued for this purpose. *It is so ordered.*