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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM XOX
CORPORATION'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,720,551
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,017,484
<PP&E>                                         478,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                 345,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,302,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          286,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,260
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,236,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,302,349
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               806,506
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,325,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             196,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,667,399)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.81)
        

</TABLE>
Chase Rolland LONG v. STATE

CR-15-1350

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Armando RIVAS, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellee.

No. 1D18-0189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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 Annual Report of The Center for Wound
Healing, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew G. Barnett, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange 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.

Dated: June 6, 2007



/s/ Andrew G. BarnettAndrew G. Barnett, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (the Company) for
the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as
adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The 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:
November 4, 2009



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/S/ GEORGE R. AYLWARD                          
|George R. Aylward                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|                                               
|/S/ MICHAEL A.
ANGERTHAL                       
|Michael A. Angerthal                           
|Chief Financial Officer                        



27
From: gthomas@bp.Guardian.com

To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/05/2012 08:16 AM

Subject:Guardian Fiberglass Kingman Furnace Test Report - final

Ms. Fairchild,

Enclosed is an electronic attachment of the final Kingman Furnace Report in response to the October 28, 

2011 Section 114 request.

In the abundance of caution, a complete copy was burned on a CD and has been mailed to you.

Our test company is working on entering the data into the EPA electronic reporting tool (ERT) Version 3 

and I will forward the ERT to you when it arrives.

For your convenience in reviewing the data, the claim of confidentiality is not being asserted on for the 

information in this test report.

Please let me know that you have received the information we are submitting to you.

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

Environmental Manager

Guardian Fiberglass Inc.,

1000 E. North Street

Albion, Michigan 49224

Telephone: (517) 630-2700

Fax: (517) 630-2009

(See attached file: Guardian Kingman 114 ICR Report Final 022912.pdf) (See attached file: Guardian 

Kingman 114 ICR Report Final 022912.pdf)
Order entered February 7, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00185 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.M., A MINOR CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 19 - 03631

O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ February 6, 2023 joint motion for extension of time to file their briefs
. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief s be filed no later than Ma rch 10, 2023. Becau se the record has been complete since December 13, 202 2 , we caution that further extension requests will be d isfavored
. /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 6

- BG

- 468

IN RE WILLIAM P. CORBETT, JR.

201 3 D DN 161

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg. No. 4 45800

BEFORE: Thompson

, Associate Judge , and Farrell and Reid, Senior Judge s

.

O R D E R

(Filed

– October 19, 2017)

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Judicial Court for

Suffolk County, Massachusetts, disbarring respondent from the practice of law in

Massachusetts ; t his court’s J uly 21 , 2017

, order temporarily suspending respondent

and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be

imposed ; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline ;

and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to the show cause order or

the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit

, it is

ORDERED that William P. Corbett, Jr., is hereby disbarred from the practice

of law in the District of Columbia

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483

, 487

- 88 (D.C.

2010) (explaining that the presumption of identical discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, §

11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases); In re Cole , 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C.

2002) (explaining that in unopposed reci procal matters the “imposition of identical

discipline should be close to automatic”)

. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the time for eligibility to petition for

reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar R

. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

PER CURIAM
Christopher REDD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4704

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Christopher Redd, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
Justin SHAFFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-282

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 2018

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
STATE EX REL. Daniel CHAMBERS v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2016-KH-2207

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

*1229Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.
Rayshun Donyale WALKER v. GEICO CASUALTY CO.

2160108

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 36 Filed: 12/05/18 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: 617

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 36 Filed: 12/05/18 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: 618
#### City of Little Rock, *ex parte.*

*Jurisdiction*— Prohibition.—Prohibition will not lie to an inferior court, in a cause arising out of its jurisdiction, until that matter has been pleaded in the original court and the plea refused.

The circuit court will not be presumed to take cognizance of matters not within its jurisdiction.

*Petition for Prohibition.*

*T. D. W. Yonley, Montgomery Wai*wick, for petitioner.

The power of amotion is incident to every corporation, *8 Kent. Com. §4-8-9; Angelí $ Ames on Corp. sec. 408-9, 27, 82; 5 Ind. 77; Grant on, Corp. p. 240,*and is conferred by statute in this State. *See page 273, New Digest, sec. 67, Law of Mun. Corp.*The city council is not a court and the provisions of the Code *(see. 681,)*do not apply to it.

*53"WlLSHIRE, O. J.

■ On a former day of tlie present term the city council of the city of Little Rock presented to this court their petition, suggesting and informing us that one II. H. Pugh had applied to the Pulaski circuit court for a writ of mandamus, commanding the members of the said city council to refrain from further proceeding in the cause of impeachment instituted in said council for the removal of said 31. H. Pugh, as the solicitor of said city, upon charges preferred against him, and also commanding said city council to dismiss said proceedings against said Pugh.

This court, in a very early case, announced the doctrine that at common law the rule was that no pi'ohibition lay to an inferior court, in a cause arising out of its jurisdiction, until that matter had been pleaded in the original court, and the plea refused. *Williams, ex parte, 4 Ark., 540; Blackburn, ex parte 6 Ark., 22.*

The same doctrine was reiterated and re-affirmed in the case of *McMeechen et al., ex parte, 12 Ark., 73.*The suggestion in this cause .fails to show that the petitioners have made any effort to defeat the issuance of the mandamus by the circuit court, by plea to the jurisdiction of that court, or otherwise.

This court will not presume that the circuit court will take cognizance of matters not within its jurisdiction.

There being no allegation in the suggestion that the petitioners have sought, by plea or otherwise, to object to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and prevent the issuance of the mandamus; that the plea or objection was overruled and refused, the application here for a rule to show cause why the writ of prohibition should not issue must be refused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from FY1998 Q2
unaudited financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          43,820
<SECURITIES>                                    31,936
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                       874
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,725
<PP&E>                                          32,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,075
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,925
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,882
<SALES>                                         31,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,216
<CGS>                                           16,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (919)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,310
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,538
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,772
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,772
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0277 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: BRANDY J.PERSOMA,

Petitioner and Appellant, and TYLER S.PERSOMA,

Respondent and Appellee. 

# FILED SEP 25 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Appellant Brandy J. Persoma has filed a motion for a 30-day extension of time within which to file her opening brief. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion is GRANTED. Appellant's opening brief shall be filed on or before October 29,2020.

4". DATED thisZ-5 day ofSeptember,2020. For the Court,
By ChiefJustice 09/25/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0277
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11629]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary exhibition or display at The J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-00905 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RAM ON DI AZ- CORT EZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71549 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 279- 456 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R a m on D i a z - C ort e z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on pr e t e rm i tt i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f orc anc e l l a t i on of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo 

# FI LED JU L 25 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71549 2 q u e s tio n s o f

law , C er ez o v. Mukasey , 5 1 2 F . 3 d1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. B ec ause D i az -C ort ez fa i l ed t o d em on strat e agross m i sc arri age of j ust i ce at h is p r io rp r o c e e d in g s , h e m ayn o t c o lla te r a llya tta c kh is 2 0 0 4 r e m o v a l o r d e r . See Ra m i r ez -J

u a r ezv . I NS , 6 3 3 F .2 d1 7 4 , 1 7 5 - 7 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( “T h is courthas c on si st ent l y hel d thatan al i en cann otcol l at er al l y att ac k an earl i er excl usi on or depo rt at i on ata s ub se qu entdepo rt at i on hear i ng , i n the abse nce of a g r o s s m is c arr ia g e o f

ju s tic e a t th e p r io rp r o c e e d in g s .” ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Tyree LAMPLEY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING CORPORATION MORTGAGE, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1157

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 10.7.4**

 

 

**Employment Arrangements with Eddie Lee Hight**

 

America’sCar-Mart, Inc. (the “Company”) has a written employment agreement with EddieLee Hight.  This agreement is filed asExhibit 10.7 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended July 31, 2003.  Mr. Hight receivesan annual salary of $170,000 per year and a quarterly bonus equal to 0.5% ofthe Company’s net income during such period. In addition to the benefits described in his employment agreement, Mr.Hight is entitled to the following fringe benefits:  use of a company car, cell phone service,long-term disability insurance, health insurance for him and his family andpayment of health or country club dues. The Company did not make any payments for dues to a health or countryclub or long-term disability insurance for Mr. Hight during fiscal 2005.  Mr. Hight’s salary, bonus and fringe benefitsare subject to adjustment at the discretion of the Company’s board of directorsand price increases.

 

----
----

----

----

----

----

|        If to      Employer:        CytRx      Corporation       11726      San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 650       Los      Angeles, California  90049       Facsimile:                  (310)      826-5529       Attention:                  Chief      Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              If to      Employee:        __________________       __________________       __________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |

----

|   | “EMPLOYER” CytRx      Corporation  By: /s/      STEVEN A.      KRIEGSMAN                                                               Steven A.KriegsmanChief Executive      Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   “EMPLOYEE”  /s/ BENJAMIN S.      LEVIN                                                               Benjamin      S. Levin                                                    |

----
C.A., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5231

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.