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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 3
THROUGH 5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q 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-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  413,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    115,404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               620,321
<PP&E>                                       1,468,364
<DEPRECIATION>                                 298,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,815,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          443,446
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           474
<OTHER-SE>                                     810,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,815,511
<SALES>                                      1,366,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,366,384
<CGS>                                        1,140,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,140,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                78,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                121,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,424
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             72,634
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,416
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32


</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SKMI Interactive, Inc.; on Form 10-QSB
      for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Charles Camorata, Principal Executive
      Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his
      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.




By:
              /s/ Charles CamorataName:
                Charles Camorata
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              August
                13, 2007
Order entered May 27, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00844-CV

ALYSSE BARLOW, Appellant

V.

KENDALL RICHARDSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-16151

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s May 24, 2022 unopposed second motion for 

an extension of time to file her brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time 

to June 30, 2022. We caution appellee that further extension requests will be 

disfavored.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
**                               **                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1.

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Dr. Thomas Drees, Chief Executive Officer, and David Nelson, Principal Accounting Officer, of Sanguine Corporation (the "Registrant") 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, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 (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 operations of the Registrant.

 

Dated:  May 20, 2010

By:  /s/ Dr. Thomas Drees

                            

        Dr. Thomas Drees

                           

        Chief Executive Officer

By:  /s/  David Nelson

        David Nelson, Chief Financial Officer

 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanguine Corporation and will be retained by Sanguine Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000926283
<NAME> JAMES CABLE FINANCE CORP.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,809,873
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,355,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,887
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,248,780
<PP&E>                                      89,298,869
<DEPRECIATION>                              68,796,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,250,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,801,025
<BONDS>                                    100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (56,550,958)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,250,067
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,080,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,881,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,608,354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,415,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,415,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             15,887,169
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,471,352
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### THE STATE *v.*DANIEL R. McINTOSH.

Upon the trial of issues in proceedings for bastardy the defendant is a competent witness.

*(State*v. *Waldrop,*63 N. C. 507; *State*v. *Pate,*Bus. 244, cited and approved.)

Special proceedings *for basta/rcly,*tried before *Gan-non, J.,*at Fall Term 1869 of Yancey Court.

Upon the trial of the issues, the defendant tendered himself as a witness, hut his Honor excluded him, as incompetent. The defendant excepted.

Yerdict, *G-uilty;*Judgment accordingly, and Appeal by the defendant.

*Phillips & Merrimon,*for the appellant.

*F. S. Busbee, contra.*

Dick, J.

A proceeding in bastardy, is a civil action, as distinguished from a criminal action: Const. Art. IY, s. 1.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, it is a special proceeding, as distinguished from a civil action proper. In such special proceeding a party may be examined as a witness in his own behalf: O. O. P. §§ 342-3; *State*v. *Waldrop,*63 N. C. 507; *State*v. *Pate,*Bus. 244.

There was error in the ruling of his Honor, and there must be a *venire de novo*upon the issues submitted.

Let this be certified.

Per Curiam. *Venire de novo..*
2 

o Buffer distance: 10 feet 

o Release Height: 20 inches 

o Droplet Size: A combination of spray nozzles and appropriate pressure must be 

selected to provide ASABE standard S571.1 droplet size category of fine (DV0.5 of ≥

180 microns) or coarser than fine. 

o Maximum ground wind speed: 15 mph 

For ground applications, EFED estimated risk to listed terrestrial plants from exposure via spray 

drift based on BASF’s proposed label language and estimated environmental concentrations 

(EECs) generated by the AgDRIFT model (Table 1). Risk quotients (RQs) for no buffer range 

from 285 to 289 whereas RQs for a 10 foot buffer range from 6 to 26. Therefore, a buffer of 10 

feet for ground applications reduces RQs for listed terrestrial plants from exposure via spray drift 

by 11 to 45 fold. In addition, distances from the edge of field where RQs for exposure via spray 

drift fall below the terrestrial plant Level of Concern (LOC) are reduced by 10 feet (Table 2). It 

should be noted that reductions in RQs for exposure via runoff or distances from the edge of 

field where RQs for exposure via runoff fall below the terrestrial plant LOC cannot be 

quantified. 
3 

Table 1. Risk Quotients (RQs) for Listed Terrestrial Plants from Exposure via Spray Drift from Ground AEstimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) Generated by the AgDRIFT Model 

Most Sensitive Species 

Toxicity Endpoint: 

Seedling Emergence 

NOAEC (Dicot) 

LOAEC (Monocot)* 

(lb a.i./A) 

Buffer 

Distance 

(ft) 

EEC (lb a.i./A) 

Ground Application; Low Boom (20 Inches)

RQ 

(EEC/Toxicity E

VF-F Drop Size VF-F Drop Size VF-F Drop Size 

50th

percentile 

90th

percentile 

50th

percentile 

90th

percentile 

50th

percentile 

90th

percentile 

pe

Dicot: Tomato Monocot: Oat 0.000706 0 0.2017 0.2038 0.2009 0.2015 286 289 

10 0.0085 0.0185 0.0045 0.0055 12 26 

VF-F = Very Fine to Fine; F-M/C = Fine to Medium/Course *LOAEC used in lieu of NOAEC due to the lack of adefinitive NOAEC Table 2. Distances From Edge of Field Where RQs for Exposure via Spray Drift from Ground Application Terrestrial Plant Level of Concern (LOC) for Seedling Emergence Endpoints 

Most Sensitive Species Buffer Distance (ft) Distance (ft) From Edge of Field Where RQ for Exposure via Spray 

Drift Falls Below the Terrestrial Plant Level of Concern (LOC) for 

Seedling Emergence Endpoints 

Ground Application; Low Boom (20 Inches) 

VF-F Drop Size F-M/C Drop Size 

90th percentile 50th percentile 90th percentile 50th percentile 

Dicot: Tomato Monocot: Oat*

0 299 135 138 66 

10 289 125 128 56 

VF-F = Very Fine to Fine; F-M/C = Fine to Medium/Course * distances from the edge of field calculated using the LOAEC due to the lack of a definitive NOAEC
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel: Tailoring HIV Curative Strategies to the Participant (UM1 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         December 2-3, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G22 Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kristina S. Wickham, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities,  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G22, Rockville, MD 20892, 301-761-5390,                         *kristina.wickham@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 22, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-24980 Filed 10-25-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
## Morgantow n Municipa l Airpor t 10 0 HartFiel d Road Morgantown , Wes tVirgini a 2650 5 (304 ) 291-746 1 www.morqantownairport.co m 

### IMORGANTOW N MUNICIPA LAIRPOR

T Calvi n G . Kell yII I Airpor t Directo r c.glcn.kellv(a > wvdsl.ne t Ma y6 , 201 0 Mr . Denni s J . DeVan y Chief , Essentia l Ai rServic e Division , X-5 3 Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s U.S . Dept . o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Dea rMr . DeVany : I full ysuppor t Colga n Ai rInc . db a Unite d Expres s t o continu e commercia l ai rservic e a t Morgantow n MurricipahAirporttMGW ) wit h fligfrt s t o Dulle s Internationa l Airpor t (IAD) . Pleas e recommen d t o th e Assistan t Secretaryfo rAviatio n an d Internationa l Affair s tha t Colga n Ai rInc . b e selecte d a s th e ai rcarrie rfo rthi s airport . Colgan' s servic e ha s been-outstand+n g an d I-believ e Mr . FMii l Ree d i s th e onJyon e I'v e see n wh o wil l b e abl e t o mak e aviatio n viabl e i n th e futur e o fthi s airpor t withou t bein g underwritten . Respectfully , Calvi n G . Directo r Morgantow n Municipa l Airpor t
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, 2007 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
APRIL 10, 2008
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, George R. Chapdelaine,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Qof Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialinformation included in this report, and the financial statements on which thefinancial information is based, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)         [omitted]

 

(c)          Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report; and

 

(d)         Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  March 8, 2004 |   | /s/ George R. Chapdelaine            |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | George R. Chapdelaine, President and |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer              |

 

----
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Computer Data Systems, Inc.

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Computer Data Systems, Inc.
as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the two years in the
period ended June 30, 1997. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Corporation's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Computer Data
Systems, Inc. at June 30, 1997 and 1996 (not presented separately herein), and
the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the
two years in the period ended June 30, 1997 (not presented separately herein),
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


/s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Washington, D.C.
July 28, 1997
No. 28—2297.

#### William A. Giles v. John F. Barney et al.

A proceeding under the Mechanic’s Lien Law where the action was based upon and for work and materials done and furnished under a written contract between the parties. By the fifth clause of the agreement under which the materials.were furnished and the work done, Giles agreed that upon the architect’s acceptance of the work as complete and finished, he would pay to the petitioners the balance in full, “ on the presentation of the architect’s certificate certifying that the contract has been well and truly performed and accepted by him, and that all damages or allowances which should be paid dr made by the parties of the second part have been deducted from the amount of the said final certificate, and also a certificate from the parties of the second part, that all claims and damages for extra work or otherwise, under, or in connection with this contract, have been presented to the architect.” The making by the architect of the one, and by the contractors of the other of said certificates, and the presentation of them respectively to Giles, the owner, by or on behalf of said contractors, was a condition precedent to the right to payment for the final balance under the contract: Packard v. Van Schoick, 58 Ill. 79, and cases there cited; Coey v. Lehman, 79 Ill. 173 ; Downey v. O’Donnell, 86 Ill. 49; Walsh v. Walsh, 11 Bradwell, *651199. The petition does not allege, nor the proof show, that the petitioners ever made or presented to Giles any such certificate as is required by said fifth ciause to be made and presented. Neither does the petition allege, or the proof show, the making and presentation of such a certificate by the architect as is required by that clause. The one described in the petition and given in evidence falls substantially short of that required. Nor is there any waiver or excuse alleged or shown in respect to either of said cértificates. The contract being the foundation of the petitioner’s proceeding, and being in all respects lawful and valid, it can be enforced only as the parties have made it. The court was powerless to dispense with the condition precedent to which the court has referred. Decree reversed.

Judge beffiw, George Gardner.

Attorneys, for plaintiff in error, Messrs. King & Packard ;

for defendant in error, Mr. Eugene E. Prussing.

Opinion filed April 7, 1886.

Opinion by McAllister, J.