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


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     condensed financial statements contained in the Form 10-Q for the three
     months ended March 31, 2000 for the Aetna Insurance Company of America and
     is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000925988
<NAME>                        Aetna Insurance Company of America
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           130
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     1
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 131
<CASH>                                         33
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         58
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,472
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          135
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     75
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,472
<PREMIUMS>                                     0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            3
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (1)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 0
<BENEFITS>                                     2
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    1
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tix Corporation (the “Company”) hereby
certifies based on his knowledge that:





(i)
            The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March
      31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and





(iii)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of and for the periods covered in the
Report.




DATE:
        May 6, 2009
              /s/ MATTHEW NATALIZIOMatthew
      Natalizio,Chief
      Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (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 Tix Corporation and will be retained by Tix Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an Exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-Q.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24053]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 452 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-50, K2025-49.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24053 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Samuel P. Withrow, Appellant, v. L. O. Lowden, Appellee.

Title to Real Estate: adverse claimant : laches : estoppel.

*Appeal from Hardin District Court.*— Hon. S. M. Weaver, Judge.

Saturday, January 24, 1891.

ACTION to recover the possession of real estate, and to quiet the title thereto in plaintiff. The defendant denies the claims of plaintiff, and alleges title in himself. The district court found against the plaintiff, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, quieting the title in him. The plaintiff *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*J. W. Bull*and *J. C. Slaybaek,*for appellant.

*Albrook & Hardin*and *Frank O. Lowden,*for appellee.

Robinson, J.

-The land in controversy in this case consists of two hundred acres of land in Hardin county. It was referred to in the case of *Withrow v. Walker,*81 Iowa, 651, and the controlling parts in the two cases are the same. The defendant claims title by virtue of a conveyance from the executors of Morris. Following the decision in the case cited, the judgment of the district court is afeirmeik
| 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: May      11, 2009 |                         | /s/ Fred      M. Montano |
|                          | Fred      M. Montano,        |
|                          | Chief      Executive Officer |
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Yolanda Carriere v. Alexandra Riley

Appellate case number: 01-17-00620-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-01958-7

Trial court: 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale

Date: August 14, 2018
*March 9, 1943.*

#### Buchinger, by Guardian *ad*litem, and another, Appellants, vs. Mulhaney and another, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Martin, Clifford & Dilweg*of Green Bay, attorneys, and *James McFadden*of Appleton of counsel.

For the respondents : *Benton, Bosser, Becker & Parnell*of Appleton.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### The State v. Tomlinson et al.

1. Trespass: veudict in accord with evidence and instructions. Upon examination of the record, (see opinion,) *held*that the claim that the verdict is in conflict with the evidence and the instructions could not be sustained.

*Appeal from Adams District Oowrt*— HoN. R. 0. Henry, *Judge.*

Thursday, October 6.

INFORMATION charging the defendants with the crime of willful trespass. There was a trial by jury; verdict, guilty; judgment; and defendants appeal.

*Brown &*Thomas, for appellants.

*A. J.*Baker, Attorney-general, for the State.

Seevers, J.

There was evidence tending to show that Mrs. Wing obtained title to certain real estate under the foreclosure of a mortgage and sheriff’s deed. The alleged trespass was committed by the defendants in taking certain corn grown on said real estate. There was evidence tending to show that one Hadley had rented the land of Mrs. Wing, and the defendants took the corn under a mortgage given them by Hadley.

I. It is insisted that the court failed to instruct the jury in relation to the right of the defendants to take the corn if they found Hadley had rented the land before the execution of the sheriff’s deed. We think, however, the court, in the eighth paragraph of the charge, did instruct the jury sufficiently in relation to the claim that Hadley had rented the premises.

II. It is not claimed that the charge of the court, or any part of it, is erroneous, but it is insisted that the verdict is ■in conflict with the seventh and ninth paragraphs of the charge. The seventh paragraph is as follows: “If said *424defendants took and' carried away said corn in good faith, and honest beliéf that they had a right to take the same, then * * * you should acquit.” The evidence tended to show that the corn was taken under a mortgage executed by Hadley, but we think the jury were fully authorized to find that the defendants did not believe they had the right to take it. In other words, the evidence justified the finding that the defendants knew or ought to have known that they had no right to take the corn under the mortgage.

III. The ninth paragraph of the charge is to the effect that if the jury found that Hadley was a tenant at will of Mrs. Wing, and that if he had bestowed care and labor upon the crops grown on the premises sufficient to make him a tenant at will, then Mrs. Wing could not terminate such tenancy, and claim the crops. We do not think the verdict is in conflict with this instruction. It was a controverted question, whether Hadley was a tenant of Mrs. Wing’s, or whether he had any right to the possession of the land or crops. Upon this question we understand there was serious conflict in the evidence^ and the verdict in our judgment cannot be disturbed.

AwiRMBD.
#### John Mara v. John Bucknell, Appellant.

Evidence not preserved by bill op exceptions: assignment op errors TOO GENERAL.

*Appeal from Winnesheik District Court.*— Hon. W. A. Hoyt, Judge.

Tuesday, February 6, 1894.

Action to recover damages for the breach of a contract by which the defendant bargained and sold to the plaintiff and one Henry Elliot certain real estate and personal property. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for one hundred and sixteen dollars, and defendant *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*M. B. Acres*for appellant.

*6eo. W. Adams*for appellee.

Bothrook, J.

It appears from the abstract of appellant that the evidence in the ease was not preserved by a bill of exceptions, and no evidence, excepting a single item thereof, is set out in the abstract. As it is conceded that there was no bill of exceptions making the evidence of record, the ease must be considered here, if at all, upon the pleadings and the instructions of the court. The assignment of errors is in these words: *“First,*the court erred in giving the instructions it did to the jury; *second,*the court erred in sustaining objections to the defendant’s testimony; *third,*the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for new trial; *fourth,*the verdict is contrary to law.” We have repeatedly held that assignments of error in this general form are insufficient to raise any question in this court. We need not cite the cases. See Code, section 3207, and eases collected in McClain’s Digest. The judgment of the district court is APPIRMED.
#### LEVI MORPHEW *v.*JOSEPH TATEM and others.

*Appeal Bond, justification of.*

The justification of a surety toan undertaking on appeal, must be made by the surety himself. The affidavit of another as to the pecuniary reputation of the surety will not answer the demands of the law. See preceding ease.

*184■ MotioN to dismiss an appeal heard at October Term, 1883, of The SupreME Court.

*Messrs. J. W. Todd*aud *J. F. Morphew,*for plaintiff’.

*Messrs. Q. F. Need*and *R. Z. Finney,*for deféndants.

MerriMON, J.

The plaintiff appellee moves to dismiss the appeal because the surety to the undertaking has not made affidavit as required by The Code, §5G0, that he is worth double the sum of money specified in the undertaking.

It appears that the surety made no affidavit at all, but one Dauiel Dougherty made affidavit “that the surety and principal in the above bond (referring to the undertaking) are worth fifty dollars above their debts and exemptions, according to reputation.

The statute requires that the surety shall make the affidavit. He is presumed to know his pecuniary and property circumstances better than any one else, and ought to make the affidavit.

But if another can be allowed to do so, the affidavit in this case is insufficient. The affiant does not swear that he knows the circumstances of the surety at all; he swears to “reputation.” This is not a compliance with the statute in form or substance. The intent of the statute is to serve a substantial purpose, and we cannot undertake to impair its force and effect by giving it a construction prompted by a desire to relieve negligent appellants.

The motion to dismiss the appeal must be allowed. It is so ordered.

Per CüRfAM. Appeal dismissed.
#### Will of Bain: Bain and others, Appellants, vs. Crabb, Executrix, Respondent.

For the appellants: *Martin, Clifford & Dilweg*of Green Bay.

For the respondent: *Max H. Strehlow*and *Verne C. Lewel-len,*both of Green Bay.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 701

To designate the Federal building located at 290 Broadway in New York,

New York, as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown Federal Building’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 290 Broadway

in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown

Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF RONALD H. BROWN FEDERAL

4 BUILDING.

5 The Federal building located at 290 Broadway in

6 New York, New York, shall be known and designated as

7 the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown Federal Building’’.
2

•S 701 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown Federal Building’’.

Æ
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0985. THERIAN WIMBUSH v. STEPHEN E. CASTLEN et al.

Therian Wimbush, whose parentalrights have been terminated asto nine of her

children and who is presently incarcerated for child cruelty,1has filed an original

mandamus petition in this Court. Wimbush asserts that the judgments in her parental

rights termination and criminal cases are void because the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to enter them. Wimbush asks this Court to recall the remittiturs in those

cases, vacate the judgments, and direct the lower court clerks to take certain actions. 

Although the Georgia Constitution vests the appellate courts of this state with

original mandamus jurisdiction, see Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV, we

are to exercise that authority only in “extremely rare” circumstances. Gay v. Owens,

292 Ga. 480, 480 (1) (738 SE2d 614) (2013) (punctuation omitted). Mandamus will

issue “only if (1) no other adequate legal remedy is available to effectuate the relief

sought; and (2) the applicant has a clear legal right to such relief.” Bibb County v.

Monroe County, 294 Ga. 730, 734 (2) (755 SE2d 760) (2014).

Wimbush filed an identical petition for relief in the Supreme Court of Georgia.

See Wimbush v. Castlen, Case No. S20O0703 (decided Jan. 27, 2020). The Supreme

Court concluded that mandamus was not an appropriate remedy because Wimbush

was “simply seeking to reopen matters that could have been addressed via the

1 See In the Interest of R. W., Case No. A18A1671 (dismissing as untimely

Wimbush’s appealfromjuvenile court order terminating her parentalrights) (decided

May 29, 2018); Wimbush v. State, 345 Ga. App. 54 (812 SE2d 489) (2018) (affirming

Wimbush’s convictions on three counts of cruelty to children).

February 07, 2020
ordinary channel of judicial review” and her petition did “not warrant the exercise of

[the Supreme Court’s] rarely-invoked original jurisdiction[.]” Accordingly, the

Supreme Court dismissed Wimbush’s petition.

We hereby adopt the Supreme Court’sreasoning. Because thisis not one of the

extremely rare instances in which this Court will exercise original mandamus

jurisdiction, see Gay v. Owens, 292 Ga. at 482-483 (2), we DISMISS Wimbush’s

petition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/07/2020
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 of SouthFirst Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB, for the quarter-ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Joe K. McArthur, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Janice R. Browning, Controller of the Company, being the principal
financial officer of the Company, do hereby 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 our 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date: August 13, 2003                       By:  /s/ Joe K. McArthur
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Joe K. McArthur
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 13, 2003                       By:  /s/ Janice R. Browning
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Janice R. Browning
                                                 Controller
                                                 (Chief Financial Officer)

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
SEC or its staff upon request.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Additional Information

1. Economic Evaluation

2. NPRM Grid
Exhibit
32.1













CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










In
connection with the Annual Report of American Community Properties Trust (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen K. Griessel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my
knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), 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.














By:/s/
      Stephen K. GriesselStephen
      K. GriesselChief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      31,
2009