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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<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
<CASH>                                         66,630
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  29,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,348
<PP&E>                                         626,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                 34,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,017,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          343,822
<BONDS>                                        673,499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,789)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,017,032
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               638,408
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  324,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               330,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,877
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                15,395
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            15,395
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   15,395
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KHALIL WALKER SHABAZZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 79 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of August, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32

| | CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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-QSB of Alexandria Holdings, Inc. ("Registrant") for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
("Report"), I, Ruairidh Campbell, chief executive officer and chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)      This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
         1934; and
(2)      The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial
         condition of Registrant at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of
         Registrant for the period covered by this Report.



/s/ Ruairidh Campbell
Ruairidh Campbell
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
October 30, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.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 Registrant for the purposes
of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.`
Exhibit 32.2

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 Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William
Steinhauer, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 position and results of operations of the Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ William Steinhauer     
|William Steinhauer         
|Vice President of Finance  
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 9, 2006             

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene
Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DANIEL F. MCGARITY, CHRISTOPHER 

D. SWANSON AND MICHAEL J. 

DONNELLY,

Petitioners

v.

JOHN S. DIGIUSEPPE AND STEVEN C. 

LAURIELLO,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 780 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# New York National Guard will help safeguard Times Square New Year's celebration

/ Published Dec. 31, 2014

NEW YORK - New York National Guard Soldiers and Airmen will be on duty New Year's Eve to support law enforcement authorities as city residents and visitors say hello to 2015 and goodbye to 2014.

Members of the New York National Guard's Joint Task Force Empire Shield, a force of 500 New York Army and Air National Guard members, will have Soldiers and Airmen on duty at transportation hubs in support of the Port Authority Police Department,the Metropolitan Transit Authority Police Department and the Amtrak Police Department. 

Just under 200 National Guard members will be on shift New Years Eve, but additional Guard members can be mobilized ifrequired. 

In September the security augmentation force was almost doubled at the direction of New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.

Those National Guard Soldiers and Airmen will be  visible at Penn Station, the PATH terminal, and LaGuardia and JFK airports in coordination with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Metropolitan Transit Authority and Amtrak.

The New York National Guard's 24th Civil Support Team, a unit that is specially trained to detect chemical, biological and radiological agents, will have a detachment on duty in Manhattan to support the New York PoliceDepartment. The 22-man unit, based at Fort Hamilton, in Brooklyn, has partnered with the New York Police Department for counter-terrorism support operations since the unit's formation in 2010.

It is estimated that 1 million people will celebrate New Year's Eve in Times Square. The New York Police Department will control all access points to Times Square as part of the evening's security plans. No bags or backpacks are permitted.Emergency Service squads, drug and bomb sniffing canine units and other counter-terrorism personnel will be present in Times Square on New Year's Eve.

At the New York National Guard headquarters in Latham, N.Y., staff representatives from New York State military forces will man the National Guard's Joint Operations Center. This command and control node provides liaison and linkageto the State Emergency Management Office and New York State Department of Homeland Security.

The New York National Guard will also provide liaison officers to the New York City Police Department in preparation for the New Year's celebration.

The New York Naval Militia will also have members on duty New Year's Eve. A crew of Naval Militia members will be manning Patrol Boat 440 in support of United States Coast Guard operations in New York Harbor on New Year's Eve. Patrol Boat440, a 44-foot catamaran patrol boat, works on a daily basis with the Coast Guard in support of security operations in the harbor.

And as they do every day, New York Air National Guard members assigned to the Eastern Air Defense Sector in Rome will be monitoring the skies over New York City. The Eastern Air Defense Sector is a component of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and is responsible for coordinating the air defense of the United States east of the Mississippi.
#### Nathan Christmas, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

(Teippe, Judge, was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.)

The finding of “ no bill by two successive grand juries, on a bill of indictment for a crime, does not entitle the person charged, to an order upon the minutes of the superior court discharging him “from offense or crime therein contained.”

Criminal law. Before Judge Harris. Dooly Superior Court. March Term, 1874.

Counsel for Christmas proposed to take the following order:

“ The State *vs.*Nathan Christmas.

“ *September Term,*ISIS. *Indictment for assault with intent to rape, and no bill by the grand jury.*

*“*The State *vs.*Nathan Christmas.

*“ Indictment for assault and battery, March Term,*lSfá, *and no Mil.*

“It appearing to the court that- the above bills charge the defendant in the same transaction, and on the same day, with the same offense in law, and that two successive grand juries have ignored the respective bills, it is ordered by the court that the defendant be discharged from the offense or crime therein contained, and go hence without a day.”

The court refused to allow the order, and Christmas excepted.

*W.*A. Hawkins; *W. W.*Brown; Phil. Cook, for plaintiff in error.

Rollin A. Stanley, solicitor general; C. T. Goode, by brief, for the state.

*82McCay, Judge.

Under the facts stated in the judge’s certificate, ¿to-wit: that on this application being made, the solicitor general replied that he was about to present another bill, and that he expected to prove the two “no bills” had been procured by the fraud of the defendant, we think it was eminently proper in the judge to refuse the order asked for. But we do not think the order was a proper one had there been no such statement by the solicitor general. The Code does not contemplate that two “no bills” shall entitle the person charged to a judgment of acquittal, or to a discharge from the crime. It simply provides that they “shall be a bar to another indictment, unless they have been procured by the *fraudulent conduct*of the person charged, on proof of which or of *newly discovered*evidence, the judge *may allow*a third bill to be presented, found and prosecuted:” Code, 4708. This is a very different thing from an acquittal or final discharge by a judgment of the court. The two returns of no bill are on the minutes; they stand there for what they are worth, and whatever may be their legal effect they need no new order or judgment of the court’. Perhaps on two such returns a prisoner might be discharged from arrest; but the order sought here is for more than that, and would, perhaps, if granted, bar the third indictment, even onder the conditions provided for.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            57,238
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      16,835
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 118,123
<CASH>                                          10,215
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              10,768
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           7,319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,299
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 48,719
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             36,535
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  4,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,299
<PREMIUMS>                                      62,429
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              5,877
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               2,326
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     414
<BENEFITS>                                      38,514
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     16,398
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             8,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,487
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,009
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,477
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            7
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,485
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  55,371
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             42,857
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (4,343)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              27,276
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                14,704
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 31,717
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        (8,800)


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0161. ROBERT BAEZ v. THE STATE.

In 1994, a jury found Robert Baez guilty of trafficking in cocaine. We affirmed

his conviction on appeal. See Baez v. State, 217 Ga. App. 511 (458 SE2d 658)

(1995). In September 2016, he filed a motion requesting the transcript of the grand

jury proceedings, which the trial court denied. He has filed an application for

discretionary review of that denial. 

Although Baez included a copy of the trial court’s order, which shows that it

was signed by the judge on October 11, 2016, the order was not a stamped “filed”

copy as required by Court of Appeals Rule 31 (e). Without such a copy of the order,

we cannot ascertain if the application was filed within 30 days of the day it was

entered by the trial court clerk, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite. See OCGA § 5-

6-35 (d); Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Accordingly, on

November 3, 2016, we ordered Baez to supplement his application within ten days

with a stamped “filed” copy of the order to be appealed. We provided that failure to

comply with this directive would result in dismissal of the application. Baez has not

submitted a stamped “filed” copy of the order, and more than ten days have passed

since our order of November 3. 

Baez has filed a motion for an extension of time to file a stamped “filed” copy

of the order, or, in the alternative, for this Court to order the trial court clerk to

forward to this Court a stamped “filed” copy of the order. Baez’s argument in his

motion that he has made efforts to obtain a stamped “filed” copy of the order, but has

been unable to obtain such a copy from the trial court clerk, does not excuse the

requirement imposed upon him by Court of Appeals Rule 31 (e). Without a stamped

November 29, 2016
“filed” copy, we are unable to entertain jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly,

Baez’s motion is hereby DENIED, and his application is hereby DISMISSED.

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.

11/29/2016
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofSonus Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,2003 and as amended on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, EllenB. Richstone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|                     | /s/ Ellen B. Richstone                                   |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | Ellen B. Richstone                                       |
| Date: June 10, 2005 | *Chief Financial Officer**(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

1

----
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Green Oaks Concepts,  Ltd.,
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned,
Daniel L. Hodges,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal  Accounting  Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting 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
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.
#### DAVID F. SMITH, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*ROLLIN THORP, Defendant in Error.

ERROR TO THE ROOK CXRCUXT COURT.

Though, under the code, an appeal lies from an order denying a new trial, yet a writ of error only lies to a final judgment. The code has wrought no change in this respect in regard to writs of error.

A printed *abstract*of the case, though it has the certificate of the clerk appended to it, cannot be considered a proper record.

This was doubtless a mistake in prosecuting a writ of error instead of an appeal from an order of the court below denying a motion for a new trial.

The case is explained in the opinion of the court.

*Williams*& Patterson, for the plaintiff in error.

*Sleeper*& *Norton,*for the defendant in error.

*By the Court,*

Smith, J.

This cause was commenced before a justice of the peace of Rock county, where the defendant obtained judgment, and the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, wherein the plaintiff obtained a verdict for $74 *21,*and costs were taxed at $61 *92.*Upon application of the defendant’s attorney, the court below ordered that the defendant have ninety days to make a case whereon to move for a new trial, with leave to turn the same into a bill of exceptions. The motion for a new trial was denied, to which ruling the defendant excepted. The bill of exceptions was settled by *515stipulation, and it is probable that the parties supposed that the case was to be brought to this court by appeal from the order of the circuit court denying the motion for a new trial. But instead oí an appeal, the defendant brought a writ of error. A writ of error only lies to a final judgment, and as there is no final judgment in this case, or any action oí the court, as appears subsequent to the order refusing the new trial from the papers before us, the writ must be dismissed.

It may be well to remark, that in point of fact there is no proper record before this court. It is true the clerk has attached his certificate to the printed case, but that is, and purports to be only an abstract of the case. Whether or not it would be sufficient to sustain an appeal from the order of the court below, denying the motion for a new trial, it is not necessary to determine. But it can scarcely be called a record in the proper sense of that term. Certainly it is not one to which a writ of error can apply.

Writ of error dismissed.