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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              30
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         46
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,491
<PP&E>                                           5,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,190
<BONDS>                                          1,083
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        300
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,297
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,675
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    141
<INCOME-TAX>                                        51
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 90
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        90
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the Consolidated Financial Statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
CORPORATE RESOLUTION OF

                       MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES SYSTEMS, INC.

     I, the undersigned secretary or assistant secretary of Medical Technologies
Systems,  Inc. (the "Corporation"),  hereby certify the Corporation is organized
and  existing  under  and by virtue  of the laws of the  State of  Florida  as a
corporation for profit,  with its principal  office at 12920  Automobile  Blvd.,
Clearwater, Florida, and is duly authorized to transact business in the State of
Florida.

     I further certify that at a meeting of the Directors of the Corporation was
duly  called  and held on June  28,  2000 at 2:00  p.m.  at the  offices  of the
Corporation at 12920 Automobile Blvd.,  Clearwater,  Florida,  at which a quorum
was present and by voting, or by other duly authorized  corporate action in lieu
of a meeting, the following resolutions were adopted:

     Be it resolved that any one of the following named  officers,  employees or
agents of this Corporation:

               Name             Position
         ---------------       ----------

         Todd Siegel            President

         Michael Conroy         Secretary

acting for or on behalf of the Corporation are authorized and empowered:

     To execute a version of the Second Amendment to Second Amended and Restated
Loan and  Security  Agreement  (the  "Agreement")  between the  Corporation  and
SouthTrust Bank in a form  substantially  similar to the agreement  presented to
the Directors on June 28, 2000 but containing  changes to certain  provisions of
the Agreement relating to the payment of excess cash flow to SouthTrust Bank and
the  restrictions  on new business as may be negotiated  between the Corporation
and SouthTrust Bank prior to execution of the Agreement.

     I further  certify that the officer,  employee or agent named above is duly
elected,  appointed or employed by or for the  Corporation,  as the case may be,
and occupies the position set opposite the name; that the foregoing  Resolutions
now stands of record on the books of the  Corporation;  and that the Resolutions
are in full force and effect and have not been modified or revoked in any manner
whatsoever. The corporate seal is affixed to this certificate.

     In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand on July 6, 2000.

                                  Certified and attested to by:


                                  X_____________________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 187 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 187

  To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to permit family 
             planning projects to offer adoption services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 1997

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to permit family 
             planning projects to offer adoption services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Adoption Services Act of 
1997''.

SEC. 2. ADOPTION SERVICES.

    Section 1001(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300(a)) 
is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ``Such 
projects may also offer adoption services. Any adoption services 
provided under such projects shall be nondiscriminatory as to race, 
color, religion, or national origin.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jean A. Ferrizz, as Administratrix of the Estate of Michael T. Ferrizz, Deceased, Respondent, v Robert Jahelka et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Rob Roy Lounge, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated July 25, 1985, which (1) granted the motion of the plaintiff to reargue a prior motion to amend her complaint by adding a direct cause of action against the third-party defendant and (2) upon reargument, in effect vacated and recalled an order of the same court dated March 22, 1984, which had denied the plaintiff’s prior motion to amend the complaint, and granted the plaintiff’s motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff’s motion to reargue, based on an intervening change in the law *(see, Cucuzza v Vaccaro,*109 AD2d 101, *affd*67 NY2d 825), was made in July 1985 prior to the order of this court dated October 2, 1985, which dismissed plaintiff’s appeal from the order of Special Term dated March 22, 1984, on the ground of lack of prosecution. This crucial fact clearly distinguishes the case at bar from the decisions in *Bray v Cox*
      *538(38 NY2d 350) and *Montalvo v Nel Taxi Corp.*(114 AD2d 494, *lv denied in part and dismissed in part*68 NY2d 643), relied on by the third-party defendant. Accordingly, Special Term properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for reargument *(Mosca v Pensky,*41 AD2d 775; *Matter of William H. Van Vleck, Inc. v Klein,*50 Misc 2d 622; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Law of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:8, pp 158-159), and upon reargument, correctly determined the plaintiff’s motion on the merits. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Paul KatzeffChief Executive OfficerNovember 9, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,837)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         105,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                (67,234)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         29,290
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,186
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,066
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,450
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,937
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,937
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,937
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
938 F.2d 297

#### Gregory MILANOVICH, et al., Appellants, v. COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A., et al.

No. 90-7155.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided July 12, 1991.

Allen Hutter, Washington, D.C., was on the motion to dismiss for appellants.

Mitchell Stabbe, Washington, D.C., Daniel S. Pearson and George Mencio, Jr., Miami, Fla., were on the opposition to the motion to dismiss, for appellees.

Before WALD, SILBERMAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

On Motion to Dismiss

PER CURIAM:

Gregory and Marjorie Milanovich filed a personal injury action in district court against Costa Crociere, S.p.A., and Costa *33Cruises, Inc. The district court 747 F.Supp. 1, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs appealed. The notice of appeal was captioned “Gregory Milanovich, *et ux.,”*and stated that “Plaintiffs hereby appeal the judgment of the court below.” Nowhere in the notice was Marjorie Koch-Milanovich, Gregory Milanovich’s wife,' specifically identified by name as an appellant. Defendants/appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal against Marjorie Milanovich pursuant to *Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.,*487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988).

In *Torres*a notice of appeal from a judgment of dismissal listed the names of fifteen out of sixteen plaintiffs as parties to the appeal but did not list plaintiff Jose Torres. Mr. Torres argued that the use of the term *“et al.”*was enough to indicate his intention to appeal. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the use of the term *“et al.”*did not comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) because it failed to provide fair notice of the specific individual seeking to appeal. *Id.*at 318, 108 S.Ct. at 2409.

*“Et ux.”*is quite a different matter. Whereas *“et al.”*means “and others” and could refer to an entire class of unnamed individuals or just to some members of that class, *“et ux.”*is an abbreviation for *et uxor,*which means “and wife”. As used after Gregory Milanovich’s name in the caption of the notice, it could refer only to his wife. Moreover, the body of the notice states that “Plaintiffs hereby appeal.” Because there were only two plaintiffs in this case, “Plaintiffs” can refer only to Gregory and Marjorie Milanovich. Accordingly, the notice of appeal provides fair notice of the specific individuals seeking to appeal, and the motion to dismiss is

*Denied.*
#### EARLE v. BEEMAN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 20, 1896.)

Discovery—In spection of Notes.

A defendant is not entitled to an order for inspection of notes sued on before answer, unless it is shown to be necessary to the preparation of the answer or other pleading.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Artemus H. Earle against Helen M. Beeman and husband. Plaintiff appeals from an order allowing defendants an inspection of the notes sued on.

Reversed.

The complaint alleged that the notes were made by Nathan Beeman, the husband of the defendant, pursuant to the defendant’s direction, and indorsed by the plaintiff as an accommodation indorser; and that the defendant, and her husband, as her agent, negotiated them for her benefit; and that she had and used the proceeds, or her husband used them for her benefit; which notes the plaintiff subsequently had to pay. The plaintiff, pursuant to the defendant’s demand, served a bill of particulars upon the defendant, giving the dates and principal of each note, and the respective sums which the plaintiff claims to have paid upon each one of them. The defendant then moved to inspect the notes, to enable her to frame her answer, and the motion was granted.

Argued before PARKER, P. J., and PUTNAM, LANDON, HERRICK, and MERWIN, JJ.

John P. Kellas, for appellant.

Gordon H. Main (William P. Cantwell, of counsel), for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We do not think the defendant’s petition shows that she cannot properly frame her answer unless she is allowed to inspect the notes mentioned in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars, tihe states in the petition, in substance, that her defense is that she neither made nor authorized the making of the notes sued upon; that she never had their proceeds, or any benefit from them, as charged in the complaint; and that the plaintiff has been paid in real estate and money a large sum upon them. She thus has a clear idea of what her answer ought to contain. We need not consider whether she will, after answer, need an inspection in order to prepare for trial, since her motion is not based upon that ground.

The order is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion below is denied, with $10 costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Olu Norwood, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 352]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered October 28, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of nine years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea *(see People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520 [1978]). Although defendant received a sufficient opportunity to do so, he failed to provide a legal basis for withdrawing his plea. The transcript of the plea proceeding demonstrates that defendant entered his guilty plea knowingly, *628intelligently and voluntarily *(see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). Defendant expressly admitted his intent to cause serious physical injury, and there is no indication that he failed to understand that element.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES F-4 THROUGH F-6 OF THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 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-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         312,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,500)
<INVENTORY>                                    300,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               803,733
<PP&E>                                       2,952,888
<DEPRECIATION>                               (358,602)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,578,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          736,858
<BONDS>                                        378,526
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       120,412
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,342,760
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,578,556
<SALES>                                        470,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               470,518
<CGS>                                        (292,006)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (348,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (349,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                216,921<F1>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (349,278)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
<FN>
<F1>EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNTS, ITEM 37, OF 216,921 REPRESENTS A GAIN
ON SETTLEMENT OF
TRADE PAYABLES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Mosquito and Fly Research: Gainesville, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Gainesville, Florida Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology Mosquito and Fly Research People & Locations







Matthew H Brown
                        Mosquito and Fly Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician (Insects)
                        Phone: (352) 374-5978
                        
                        
                        Fax: (352) 374-5922(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 177

To provide for a special application of section 1034 of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To provide for a special application of section 1034 of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in the case of Rita Bennington—

4 (1) who purchased her new principal residence

5 (within the meaning of section 1034 of the Internal

6 Revenue Code of 1986) in January 1992, and

7 (2) who was unable to meet the requirements of

8 such section with respect to the sale of an old prin9 cipal residence until May 1994, because of unex10 pected delays caused by Hurricane Iniki,
2

•S 177 IS

1 the Secretary of the Treasury, in the administration of

2 section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall

3 apply subsection (a) of such section by substituting ‘‘2.5

4 years’’ for ‘‘2 years’’ each place it appears.

Æ