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


       
 <S>                          <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000926978
<NAME>                        Frederick Brewing Co.
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<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>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        0
<SALES>                                             440,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    440,066
<CGS>                                               357,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       362,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (15,555)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (320,538)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (320,538)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (320,538)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.16)



        


<PAGE>




</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31(e)1**

**MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 

I, Anthony J. Topazi, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mississippi Power Company;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 
(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 
(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 
(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 
(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 
(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  February 27, 2006

                  /s/Anthony J. Topazi                  

Anthony J. Topazi

President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

32.1    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
        of VOXEL pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002


                            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 on Form 10-Q of VOXEL (the "Company")
for the quarter ended June 30, 1998 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael Anthony,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of VOXEL, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated: June 17, 2008


                                    /s/ Michael Anthony
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Michael Anthony
                                    Chief Executive Officer


                                    /s/ Michael Anthony
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Michael Anthony
                                    Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         275,893               5,807,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,284,138               4,474,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                   208,678                 397,842
<INVENTORY>                                     10,010                 302,172
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,118,383              12,200,960
<PP&E>                                       3,868,724               1,797,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                 960,827                 522,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,301,171              15,860,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,656,152               6,532,043
<BONDS>                                        767,199               1,439,266
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     1,580,607               1,435,268
<OTHER-SE>                                   (694,171)               6,139,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,301,171              15,860,652
<SALES>                                     14,775,285              19,924,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,225,230              20,639,845
<CGS>                                       15,387,015              14,227,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,387,015              14,227,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,210,365               9,479,912
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                69,724                  69,724
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             101,871                 236,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,257,271)                 215,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (502,468)                 302,090
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,754,803)                (87,025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,754,803)                (87,025)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.31)                   (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.31)                   (.02)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

March 4, 2013

h0225

Order 

March 4, 2013

146118

LINDA HODGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146118

COA: 308723

Wayne CC: 10-012109-AV

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 24, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. We note that a similar issue is presented in the case of 

Moody v Getwell Medical Transport, 491 Mich 923 (2012), which we remanded to the 

Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted by order dated May 23, 2012.

VIVIANO, J., not participating.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 33 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 33

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas General George C. Marshall served as Army Chief of Staff during World 
        War II, Special Ambassador to China, Secretary of State, and Secretary 
        of Defense;
Whereas General George C. Marshall was promoted to General of the Army in 1944, 
        one of only five Army five-star generals in the history of the United 
        States;
Whereas General George C. Marshall was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 
        1946 for his military strategy and vital role during World War II;
Whereas General George C. Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for 
        developing the European economic recovery strategy known as the Marshall 
        Plan;
Whereas the George C. Marshall Foundation was established in 1953 and is devoted 
        to preserving the legacy of General George C. Marshall through 
        educational scholarship programs and facilities;
Whereas the George C. Marshall Foundation opened the George C. Marshall Museum 
        and George C. Marshall Research Library in 1964 in Lexington, Virginia, 
        on the post of the Virginia Military Institute, which is the alma mater 
        of General George C. Marshall;
Whereas the George C. Marshall Museum educates the public about the military and 
        diplomatic contributions of General George C. Marshall through extensive 
        exhibits; and
Whereas the George C. Marshall Research Library maintains the most comprehensive 
        collection of records documenting the life and leadership of General 
        George C. Marshall: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress designates the George C. Marshall Museum and George C. 
Marshall Research Library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National 
George C. Marshall Museum and Library.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 33

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Designating the George C. Marshall Museum and George C. Marshall 
  Research Library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National George C. 
                      Marshall Museum and Library.
```
## Judge Heather A. Joys Joins the Review Commission

**Judge Heather A. Joys Joins the Review Commission**

Judge Heather A. Joys joins the Review Commission today as an administrative law judge in its Atlanta Regional office. Prior to being appointed to the Review Commission, Judge Joys served as an administrative law judge with the National Labor Relations Board and the U. S. Social Security Administration in Atlanta, Georgia.

Prior to her judicial appointment, Judge Joys served over 17 years as a litigation attorney with the U. S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor. She began her career with the DOL in the Civil Rights Division of the Office of the Solicitor in Washington, D.C., where she was responsible for litigation of cases arising under E.O. 11246 and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. She was a trial attorney in the Cleveland Office where she served as lead counsel for numerous cases involving the enforcement of the OSH Act. In this capacity, she participated in the negotiation of several nationwide settlements. She also handled litigation for client agencies before the Federal District Courts and other administrative bodies. In her last years with DOL and before her judicial appointment, she served as counsel for the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and various whistleblower program areas within the Atlanta Regional Solicitor's office.

A native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Judge Joys received her Juris Doctorate and Master of Science in Industrial Relations from the University of Wisconsin. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from St. Olaf College.
#### SIMMONS H. ISLER v. JOHN H. HADDOCK and others.

In an appeal to this Court by the defendant, who makes up a statement -of the case and submits it to the plaintiff, who neither objects to the defendant’s statement, nor gives notice that on account of a disagreement as to such statement, the presiding Judge will settle the same, the statement so made up by defendant, will be considered in this Court as the record proper.

If in such case, the Judge who preside^ at the trial below, has gone out of office, and the papers are lost, the only remedy is a new trial.

*4J3tate*y. *jPowers,*3 Hawks, 376; *Hamilton*v. *McCulloch, 2*Hawks, 29, cited and approved.)

Civil Action, for the recovery of the possession of real -estate, tried before Clarke, *J.,*at the Spring Term, 1872, of Jones Superior Court.

The facts upon which this case is decided, are fully set out in the opinion of Justice Reade.

From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the Superior Court, the defendants appealed.

*Haughton,*for appellants.

*Jsler,*contra.

Reade, J.

There was a judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed, and regularly made the statement of the case for this Court, and served it on the plaintiff. No notice was given to the defendant of any objections to the case, as made out by him, and he was not notified, that because of a disagreement, the Judge would settle it; so that the defendant was entitled to have the statement of the case, made out by him, sent up with the record to this Court. But instead of that, we have the certificate of the Judge, that the papers were lost, and as a substitute, he sends up a statement of the case made by himself.

That statement, is not satisfactory to the defendant: and he *120©bjects to the ease being tried in this Court upon the statement, and moves for a new trial.

It would seem that ordinarily the proper way would be to remand the case, to the end that the defendant might again make out a statement and serve it on the plaintiff, and if they could not agree, let the Judge give notice, and settle it. But the difficulty in this case is, that the Judge, who tried the case, has gone out of office ; so that there is no possible way to have the case made up.

In such case, the only remedy is a new trial. And for this, we have the precedents of *State*v. Powers, 3 Hawks, 376; *Hamilton*v. *McCulloch,*2 Hawks, 29.

There is error.

Per Curiam. *Venire de novo.*
#### MAUNEY BROS. v. L. H. LONG and another

*Nonsuit.*

A nonsuit cannot be entered after judgment.

Civil Action, tried at Fall Term, 1883, of Cleveland Superior Court, before *Gilmer, J.*

*171This action was commenced before a justice of the peace and carried by the defendant’s appeal to the superior court. A jury trial was waived, and the judge found the facts as follows:

The action was brought upon a sealed note given by the defendant Long to one Cornwall for a mule which Cornwall had sold to Long. Cornwall assigned the note to plaintiffs,, and the suit was brought against both Long and Cornwall.

On the trial before the justice of the peace in October, 1882, the defendant Long pleaded a former judgment and a counter-claim for deficiency in the eyes of the mule.

. To sustain the defence of former judgment, he offered in evidence the docket of the justice of the peace who tried an action between the same parties upon this identical note in August, 1882, from which it appeared that service of the summons had been accepted b}' Long, and, upon Cornwall’s refusing to accept service, the summons was served on him by an officer.

On the return of the summons, the defendant Long pleaded a counter-claim for damages resulting from a deficiency in the eyes of-the mule. The case was tried in August, 1882, and the counter-claim was allowed, and judgment rendered' in favor of the plaintiffs against Long, the principal in the note for $25.40, with interest, and against Cornwall, the surety, for $76.20, and interest. Cornwall thereupon gave notice of an appeal, but never perfected it.

Not long after the rendition of this judgment, the plaintiffs informed Long that they intended to enter a nonsuit, to which the defendants who were both present made no objection; and thereupon the plaintiffs directed the justice of the peace to enter a nonsuit, and in accordance therewith he made the following entry upon his docket: “Plaintiff Mauney pays costs and orders'suit stopped. September 21, 1882.”

*172In October thereafter the plaintiffs brought this action upon the note on which the judgment liad been rendered in August.

His Honor, being of opinion that these facts did not have the effect to set aside or annul the judgment rendered in August, held that the'plea of former judgment-was good, and adjudged that plaintiffs’ action be dismissed and the defendants go without day. From this judgment the plain, tiffs appealed.

No counsel for plaintiffs.

*Messrs. Gidney*& IPee&and *Hoke & Hoke,*for defendants.

Asi-ie, J.

The principle is so well settled and so familiar to the profession, that a nonsuit cannot be entered after judgment, we deem it useless to cite any authority on the subject. There is no error. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Dean L. Cash, Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of ATEL
Cash Distribution Fund VI, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 13, 2007



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash             
|Dean L. Cash                 
|President and Chief Executive
|Officer of General Partner   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.