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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,447
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,816
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,667
<INVENTORY>                                     51,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,436
<PP&E>                                          34,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 252,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,584
<BONDS>                                        196,379
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   252,144
<SALES>                                        166,705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,705
<CGS>                                          108,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,947
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,848
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,099
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,099
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
A.R.B. v. TALLADEGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160135

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### SKYDELL *v.*WEDDING.

Pleading — Action on Judgment — Counterclaim—Joinder op Parties — Indispensable Parties.

Dismissal of defendant's counterclaim for damages caused by asserted poisoning of defendant by Ms wife, pleaded in an aetion brought on a foreign judgment by an assignee of the wife’s support payments, *held,*properly dismissed where defendant had appeared in the proceedings by which the assignee obtained the foreign judgment but did not assert his counterclaim then, and wife, who was an indispensable party to the counterclaim, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Michigan court; such a counterclaim is in the nature of recoupment or set-off rather than a defense to the foreign judgment (GCR 1963, 205, 207).

Reference por Points in I-Ieadnote

47 Am .Tur, Setoff and Counterclaim § 94.

Appeal from Chippewa, Baldwin (George S.), J.

Submitted Division 3 May 7, 1968, at Marquette.

(Docket No. 3,374.)

Decided October 23, 1968.

Rehearing denied December 4, 1968.

Leave to appeal denied February 21, 1969. 381 Mich 804.

Complaint by Rebecca Skydell against Erling S. Wedding to recover money due on a judgment. *679Counterclaim by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff on claim and dismissing counterclaim. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank B. Ferguson,*for plaintiff.

*William J.-James,*for defendant.

J. H. Gillis, J.

This was an action upon a New York judgment. Plaintiff in this case, likewise the plaintiff in New York, is the assignee of certain support payments owing from defendant to his former wife, the latter being a California resident. Although defendant appeared and participated in the New York proceedings, he raises, for the first time in Michigan, allegations by way of counterclaim against his former wife. He asserts that he was poisoned with arsenic by his former wife and has sustained damages therefrom.

The former wife is not a party to these proceedings and nowhere does any basis of jurisdiction over her person appear from this record. It was properly determined by the trial judge that assertion of the counterclaim is by way of recoupment or set-off rather than by way of defense to the action on the judgment. Under the circumstances, it appears to be a novel claim asserted against one who was not a party to the main action, but whose presence would be indispensable. GCR 1963, 205, 207.

Denial of the counterclaim was, therefore, proper and without prejudice to otherwise plead the claims. There was no error.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and McGregor, J., concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8857-8858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03250]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) 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 Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Microbial 
Metabolite Center.
    Date: March 16, 2022.
    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Paul A. Rushing, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7345, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-8895, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4c6c1c7dcdddad3c4f4d1ccc0c6d59adaddd0d0df9adadddc9ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5d7d0d6cdcccbc2d5e5c0ddd1d7c48bcbccc1c1ce8bcbcccd8bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 8858]]


    Dated: February 10, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03250 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Estelle Villano, Plaintiff, v Catherine L. Beeson, D.D.S., et al., Defendants. Harry H. Kutner, Jr., Nonparty Appellant; Kresch & Kresch, Nonparty Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 892]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered on or about September 23, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the motion of nonparty respondent Kresch & Kresch for an order directing that nonparty appellant Kutner pay to Kresch & Kresch a portion of the contingency fees for the representation of plaintiff in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to the claim of incoming counsel, appellant Kutner, that Kresch & Kresch, as outgoing counsel, was not entitled to any portion of the contingency fees owing for plaintiffs representation. While Kresch & Kresch made an offer to withdraw, Kutner may not rely on that offer since the offer *345was not accepted by plaintiff. Furthermore, Kutner agreed to an allocation of fees when he ultimately agreed to represent plaintiff. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Douglas MIGUEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30015

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Jennifer Jane Martin, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ryan Timothy O’Connor, O’Connor Weber, LLC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M; SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Douglas Miguel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and the 120-month sentence imposed for violations of the Mann Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421, and for tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1512(b)(1). We dismiss.

Miguel argues that the district court erred by failing to inquire into the volun-tariness of his guilty plea when, during Miguel’s allocution at the sentencing hearing, he requested a lower sentence than was stipulated to in his plea agreement. The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal. *See United States v. Harris,*628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Miguel’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal. *See id.*at 1205-06. Contrary to Miguel’s contention, the record reflects that he waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily, *see United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-87 *241(9th Cir. 2009), and that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, United *States v. Kaczynski,*239 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, the record belies Miguel’s contention that the district court advised him that he had the right to appeal. *See United States v. Arias-Espinosa,*704 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court does not negate the written waiver of the right to appeal by stating that defendant “may have a right to appeal”). Accordingly, we dismiss pursuant to the valid waiver. *See Harris,*628 F.3d at 1207.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit
3.1(d)




[
File Stamp]






ROSS
MILLER


Secretary
of State


204
North Carson Street, Ste
1                                    
Filed in the office
of                                                    
Document number


Carson
City,Nevada89701-4299ROSS
MILLER20090096526-69


775)6845708                                                                           Ross
Miller                                                              
    Filing Date and Time


Website:
secretaryofstate.biz                                                              
Secretary of
State           
                                           
01/30/2009  7:40 AM


State of
Nevada


Entity
Number


C23286-1998




Certificate
of Amendment


(PURSUANT
TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)




USE
BLACK INK ONLY - DO NOT
HIGHLIGHT                                                                                               
ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY




Certificate
of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation


ForNevadaProfit
Corporation


(Pursuant
to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)




1. Name
of corporation:




CARDTREND
INTERNATIONAL
INC.                 FILE#
C23286-1998




2. The
articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
available):


3.
            Authorized
      Stock. The amount of the total authorized stock of this corporation is
      Five Hundred Million (500,000,000) shares with a par value of
      $0.001.








3. The
vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling
them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater
proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by
classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the*  articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the
amendment is: 114,398,233 (73.42%)




4.
Effective date of filing (optional): Upon Filing with the Secretary of
State




(must not
be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)




5.
Officer Signature(Required):XKATHERINE
Y. TUNG,
Secretary & Treasurer


Katherine Y. Tung




*If
any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative or
other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the
amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the affirmative vote
otherwise required, of the holders of shares representing a majority of the
voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of
limitations or restrictions on the voting power
thereof.




IMPORTANT:
Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper fees may
cause this filing to be rejected.




This
form must be accompanied by appropriate fees.




Nevada
Secretary of State AM 78.385 Amend 2007


Revised
on: 01/01/07
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATE



As required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, (as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002), I certify that:



(1)        The Annual Report of VirTra Systems, Inc. for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ L. Kelly Jones

L. Kelly Jones

chief executive officer

April 17, 2006



1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          17,957
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              10
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     46,046
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,456
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,058
<LOANS>                                        188,055
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,884
<DEPOSITS>                                     247,446
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,953
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,381
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,435
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,592
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 285,884
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,687
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  914
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,601
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,999
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,072
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,529
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      240
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (16)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    783
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         783
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.96
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,101
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,565
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,792
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      418
<RECOVERIES>                                        60
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,674
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,674
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

Cause numbers: 01-20-00477-CR, 01-20-00478-CR, and 01-20-00479-CR

Style: In re The State of Texas ex rel. Brian W. Wice, Relator

Type of motion: Motion for reconsideration en banc

Party filing motion: Relator

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration en banc is denied. The 

temporary stay imposed on June 15, 2021 is lifted.

Judge’s signature: /s/Julie Countiss

Acting for the En Banc Court

Date: September 9, 2021

*En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, 

Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra. Justice Farris not 

participating.

Goodman, J., dissenting from the denial of en banc reconsideration for reasons stated 

in his concurring and dissenting opinion.

Guerra, J., dissenting from the denial of en banc reconsideration with separate 

opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 3, 2019

p0926

Order 

Clerk

October 3, 2019

159054-5

PAMELA L. TREES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 159054

COA: 338297

Macomb CC: 2015-003623-NP

PFIZER, INC., PFIZER INTERNATIONAL,

LLC, GREENSTONE, LLC, f/k/a 

GREENSTONE LIMITED, and MEIJER, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

CAROL BEARUP, BARBARA BEECHAM,

SONYA MENCY, VIOLA MOSES, and

HEATHER MACKS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 159055

COA: 340191

Wayne CC: 15-013604-NP

PFIZER, INC., PFIZER INTERNATIONAL,

LLC, GREENSTONE, LLC, f/k/a 

GREENSTONE LIMITED, MEIJER, INC.,

and CVS CAREMARK,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

WAL-MART STORES, INC., d/b/a SAM’S

CLUB, a/k/a SAM’S EAST, INC., and

DOES 1-50.

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Moving Bytes Inc. (the  "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ended  December  31,  2003 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Erik
Mustad, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  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 this Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          all the Company.




                                          /s/ J. Erik Mustad
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          J. Erik Mustad
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          April 9, 2004




<PAGE>






                            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 Moving Bytes Inc. (the  "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ended  December  31,  2003 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Mark
Smith,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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 this Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          all the Company.




                                         /s/ Mark Smith
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Mark Smith
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         April 9, 2004
Scott JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0003

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.