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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> CDN

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          43,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,482
<PP&E>                                       3,668,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                 177,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,112,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,621,892
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,559,720
<OTHER-SE>                                    (69,095)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,112,517
<SALES>                                        566,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               566,698
<CGS>                                          339,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,980,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,413,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,413,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,413,721)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.260)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.260)


</TABLE>
#### Euphemia S. Coffin, App’lt, *v.*Elizabeth Jane Atkins, Impl’d, Resp’t.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed April 6, 1891.)*

Covenant—To heat building.

A covenant in a deed that the grantee will supply steam for heating and the hot water for adjoining buildings, “as now connected,” refers to the time of delivery of the deed, and a subsequent grantee of the premises cannot recover contribution for the' expense of furnishing the steam as provided in said covenant without showing that the supply to the premises in question was as they were connected at the time of delivery of the deed.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant Atkins, dismissing the complaint

Action for an accounting between plaintiff and defendant Atkins and others in relation to the expenses incurred by plaintiff in supplying steam and hot water to defendants' houses. The common source of title conveyed to plaintiff’s grantor a house in the cellar of which was a boiler and steam heating apparatus con*355nected with the adjoining houses. The deed contained a covenant on the part of the grantee to furnish “ steam for heating and the hot water for the adjoining buildings on the east of the premises hereby conveyed as now connected," so long as the expense thereof should be paid by dividing the same among the buildings using the steam and hot water.

*Edmund Coffin, Jr.,*for app’lt; *Daly, Hoyt & Mason,*for resp’t.

Dugro, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment The covenant in the deed of July, 1884, reads that the plaintiff will “supply the steam for heating and the hot water for the adjoining buildings on the east of the premises hereby conveyed as now connected.”

The word “ now ” refers to the time of the delivery of the deed.

To establish his case it became necessary for the plaintiff to show, among other things, that the supply of the steam and hot water to the premises in question was as they were connected at the time of the delivery of the deed. This she failed to do. The complaint was, therefore, properly dismissed. The judgment should be affirmed.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurs in result.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 15, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0260

Lower Tribunal Nos. 07-7538 CC & 20-0234 AP

________________

United Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Primary Health Services, a/a/o Odalys Rodriguez,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gloria 

Gonzalez-Meyer, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

Panter, Panter & Sampedro, P.A., and David Sampedro, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The H. B. Smith Company, Resp’t, *v.*Charles P. Chapin App’lt.

*(City Court of New York, General Term,*

*Filed March 10, 1891.)*

New trial—Verdict contrary to instructions.

In an action upon a contract the defendant alleged that it was made by reason of false representations, and that a sum claimed to have been paid thereon was not a payment, but a loan to plaintiff. The court charged that if the jury found the misrepresentations were made they should find a verdict for defendant for the amount of the loan; but if not, they should find for plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. *Held,*that in view of the instructions and the verdict rendered the trial court properly ordered a new trial on the minutes.

This action was brought to recover the contract price, and for -extra work, for erecting in the house of the defendant “ a steam and hot water heating apparatus.” The contract was in writing, and the amount to be paid under said contract was the sum of .$870. The sum of $35.80 was claimed for extra work ordered ■by the defendant

The plaintiff alleges that -$500 had been paid on account, and •claims the balance due of $405.80, besides interest

The defendant admits the making of the contract, but alleges that certain representations and statements were made to defendant relating to the merits and ability of said apparatus to do the heating of defendant’s house, which statements and representations were false, and alleges that the sum of $500, referred to as having -been paid on account of the contract, was not a payment, but was •a loan and an advance made to plaintiff by defendant

The action came on for trial on December 13, 1889, and after the charge of the trial justice, which was to the effect that if the jury found that the misrepresentations alleged were made, plaintiff could not recover, and they should find a verdict for defendant for the amount of such loan; but if no misrepresentations were made, they should find a verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed, the matter was submitted to the jury upon all the evidence taken, who returned a verdict in favor of the defendant The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the minutes, and the trial justice granted the motion; and on the 11th day of February, 1890, an order was entered setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial. From this order defendant appeals.

*Smith, Bowman & Close,*for resp’t; *Remson & Parsons,*for app’lt.

McGown, J.

We have carefully examined the case on appeal, also the exceptions therein, and considering the instructions given by the trial justice in his charge to the jury, and also the verdict rendered herein, we think that the action taken by the trial justice in granting the order appealed from was a correct and proper one under the circumstances as disclosed upon the trial, and that the trial justice exercised a proper discretion in granting such order, and that the rights of each of the parties to the action would be best served by a new trial herein, in accordance with said order.

*464The order appealed from will, therefore, be affirmed, with costs-to the appellant

Ehrlich, Ch. J., and Yah Wyck, J., concur.
#### RELYANT, LLC, Appellant v. Robert M. SPEER, Acting Secretary of the Army, Appellee

2016-2038

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 10, 2017

James Henry Price, Lacy, Price *&*Wagner, PC, Knoxville, TN, argued for appellant. Also represented by Michael Ryan Franz.

Anthony F. Schiavetti, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirsch-man, Jr., Martin F. Hockey, Jr.

(Wallach, Clevenger, and Schall, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Freddie Buford WALKER v. STATE

CR-16-0037

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Dewayne PLEMONS Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-6076

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed July 24, 2017

Luke A. McLaurin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Knoxville, TN, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Laura E. Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender Services, Knoxville, TN, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: BATCHELDER and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; LEVY, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Judith E. Levy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge.

In 2014, Dennis Plemons pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court found that Plemons had three prior convictions for violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18' U.S.C. § 924(e), which triggered a mandatory-minimum sentence of 15 years. One of those convictions was for Tennessee aggravated burglary, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-403. At the time of Plemons’s sentencing, that crime constituted a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA under our decision in *United States v. Nance,*481 F.3d 882 (6th Cir. 2007). In *United States v. Stitt,*however, we overruled *Nance*and held that a conviction for Tennessee aggravated burglary is not a violent felony under the ACCA. 860 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Plemons’s conviction for that offense therefore was not a violent felony under the ACCA. We vacate Plemons’s sentence and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, May Wu, 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 to my 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 18, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ May Wu             
|Name:  |  | May Wu                 
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report, as amended, of Micromem TechnologiesInc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended October 31, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Fuda,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 20, 2003

|   | /s/Joseph Fuda Joseph Fuda
  |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
#### HERNDON *v.*JONES.

1. Judgment — Summary Judgment — Lot Restrictions — Setback.

Summary judgment for defendants in action to compel defendants to construct dwelling 50 feet from front lot line rather • than at a setback greater than 50 feet *held,*proper where 50-foot front lot line restriction was a minimum restriction.

2. Costs — No Brief.

No costs are awarded on appeal where prevailing party files no ■ brief. '

References for Points in Headnotes

[1] 41 Am Jur, Pleading § 340 *et seq.*

[2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 1010.

Appeal from Macomb, Noe (Alton H.), J.

Submitted Division 2 October 10, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 3,910.)

Decided October 21, 1968.

Complaint by Quitmon Herndon and Helen D. Herndon against Marion E. Jones and Vivian Jones for injunction to compel compliance with subdivision lot restrictions. Summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*Gruenburg, Robinson & Bogus,*for plaintiffs.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs filed complaint for an injunction to restrain defendants from constructing a bouse more than 50 feet from tbe front lot line in a subdivision wbicb bad a 50-foot front lot line restriction. Tbe trial judge granted defendants’ *609motion for summary judgment on the basis the 50-foot restriction was a minimum restriction. Plaintiffs appeal.

Summary judgment was proper.

Affirmed but without costs.

Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Vandeb Wal, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:



| | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-83975) pertaining to the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-58174) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-85468) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-130097) and related prospectus of drugstore.com, inc.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (5) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-153407) pertaining to the 2008 Equity Incentive Plan of drugstore.com, inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated March 11, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of drugstore.com, inc. and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of drugstore.com, inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 28, 2008.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Seattle, Washington

March 11, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Henry SPIVEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50977

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 27, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Henry Spivey, Jr., Pro Se

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Henry Spivey, Jr., federal prisoner # 10158-002, requests leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s denial of his motion to “revive” a prior appeal. Spivey’s motion was “unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis.” *See United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). His appeal from the denial of this motion is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because Spivey’s appeal fails to present a nonfrivolous issue, his motion for IFP is DENIED. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 *&*n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Matthew DONNELLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3834

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Rebekah Samir SIDDIQUI, Appellant, v. Brian Stewart NEWTON and Carolyn Newton, Appellees.

No. 1D17-1805

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

S. A. Siddiqui, St. Augustine, for Appellant.

Jonathan J. Luca of Jonathan J. Luca, P.A., St. Augustine, for Appellee Brian Stewart Newton, and Dale G. Westling, Sr., of Dale G. Westling, Sr., P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee Carolyn Newton.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Makar, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            948
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          1,459
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                2,314
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    19,208
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         36,307
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           34,631
<LOANS>                                        95,877
<ALLOWANCE>                                       365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                157,446
<DEPOSITS>                                    117,355
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               958
<LONG-TERM>                                    24,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          129
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                157,446
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 5,373
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               2,765
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  199
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                8,336
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              4,270
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,210
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           3,126
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 2,104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,040
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      1,040
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      638
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   2.71
<LOANS-NON>                                         0
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  345
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      72
<RECOVERIES>                                        2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 365
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              365
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>