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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2000, AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD THEN
ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          58,932
<SECURITIES>                                   151,619
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                       208
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,789
<PP&E>                                           9,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           249
<OTHER-SE>                                     206,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,367
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    44
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,785)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,928)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,928)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)


</TABLE>
joinderagreementfnal






 







SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC.

 



JOINDER AGREEMENT

 


By
execution and delivery of this Joinder Agreement, the undersigned
hereby (i) agrees to become an Investor, as defined in that certain
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2021, by and
among Scientific Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), and
the investors listed on Schedule A attached thereto, as amended by
that certain Amendment to Registration Rights Agreement dated as of
June 18, 2021 (as so amended, the “Registration Rights Agreement”)
and (ii) to become a party to the Registration Rights Agreement and
to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Registration Rights
Agreement. The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of
the Registration Rights Agreement.

 


The
undersigned hereby authorizes this signature page to be attached to
the Registration Rights Agreement or counterparts
thereof.

 


 

 


 

 



INVESTOR:

 


 


 


 


 



By:                                                            






Name:



Title:                                                            






Address:


 


 



Date: June __, 2021


 


 


 


 


ACCEPTED AND
AGREED:


 


SCIENTIFIC
INDUSTRIES, INC.


 


 



By:                                                                   






Name:
Helena Santos


Title:
Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10900 Conference Calendar

WILLIE LOUIS EVERITT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EVERETT YOUNG, Judge, 297th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-573-Y

- - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Appellant argues that the state court judge failed to provide him with a trial record and transcript, thereby denying him access to the courts. Appellant seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief requiring appellee to provide him with the trial record and transcripts because he is indigent. “Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from claimsNo. 95-10900 - 2 - for damages arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions.” Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Appellant’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief amounts to a request for a writ of mandamus against a state official which is not authorized by § 1983. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court , 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion and appellant’s brief, and conclude that appellant has failed to raise a constitutional issue. Appellant’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution appellant that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #17147 and #17148; NEW YORK Disaster Number NY-00208]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-4615-DR), dated 09/05/2021. Incident: Remnants of Hurricane Ida. Incident Period: 09/01/2021 through 09/03/2021.

# DATES:

Issued on 09/10/2021.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 11/04/2021.

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/06/2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of New York, dated 09/05/2021, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):* Nassau.

*Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

New York: Suffolk.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Esigned—Barbara Carson

Barbara Carson,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2021-19990 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Donald Walsh, Appellant, v Carol B. Woughter, Respondent.

Submitted May 14, 2007;

decided June 7, 2007

Motion to strike denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I,  Theodore E.  Charles,  certify that this report on Form 10-Q fully  complies
with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information  contained in this report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of
Investors Capital Holdings, Ltd.

Date: February 14, 2007

By: /s/ Theodore E. Charles

Theodore E. Charles, Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs.

CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK BROWN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0283

Enforcement Activity ID: 7744480

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: August 21, 2023

By Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge: Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

CWO Hector Melendez

USCG Sector St. Petersburg

For the Respondent

Christopher Frederick Brown, pro se
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On July 31, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to the Administrative Law Judge for approval 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair, 

reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement 

is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall 

constitute full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

______________________________________

Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Chief Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard

Date: August 21, 2023
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 Southern Copper Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Eduardo González Félix, Vice President, Finance and 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
|                   | /s/  J. Eduardo González Félix           |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                   | J. Eduardo González Félix                |
|                   | Vice President, Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer |
| Date: November 4, 2005 |                                               |

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to Southern Copper Corporation and will be retained by Southern Copper Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

50

----
#### In the Matter of Jeaniya W., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Jean W., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 476]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about February 23, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father neglected the subject child, ordered the child released to her mother’s custody under 12 months of supervision by petitioner Administration for Children’s Services, awarded respondent visitation, and ordered him to complete certain services and not to engage in any further acts of domestic violence in the presence of the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of *623the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Tammie Z.,*66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]). The record establishes that while in the presence of his then three-year-old daughter, respondent struck the mother in the face during a heated argument inside a van while the vehicle was parked in a garage. The parents later continued their argument outside the vehicle, and it was so loud that bystanders intervened, but not before respondent struck the mother in the face several more times, breaking her nose, bloodying her face and causing several bruises. A child protective specialist and a licensed clinical social worker both testified that the child consistently maintained that she saw respondent strike her mother in the face. The child was reportedly sad and upset when recounting the incident.

Under these circumstances, the court properly found that due to respondent’s actions, the child was placed in imminent risk of physical, mental, and/or emotional harm, and had actually suffered emotional harm by what she had witnessed *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; *Matter of Jared S. [Monet*S.], 78 AD3d 536 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 705 [2011]).

We see no reason to disturb the court’s evaluation of the evidence, including its credibility determinations, as the findings were clearly supported by the record *(see Matter of Ilene M.,*19 AD3d 106 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
No. 07-15-00090-CV

Evangelos Pagonis

Appellant

v.

Catherine Thomas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the County Court

of Hartley County

August 10, 2015

Opinion by Justice Hancock

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated August 10, 2015

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the county court’s judgment is vacated and this appeal is

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those which

may have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11(ii)

                           EAGLE USA AIRFREIGHT, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   (UNAUDITED)
              (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AND FOOTNOTE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               MARCH 31,
                                                        -----------------------
                                                           1998         1997
                                                        ----------   ----------
         <S>                                            <C>          <C>       
         Net income                                     $    3,989   $    2,948

         Shares used in basic calculation:
           Weighted average shares outstanding              18,580       17,717
                                                        ----------   ----------
                  Total basic shares                        18,580       17,717

         Additional shares for diluted computation:
            Effect of stock options (1)                        681          926
                                                        ----------   ----------
                  Total diluted shares                      19,261       18,643
                                                        ==========   ==========

         Basic earnings per share                       $     0.21   $     0.17
                                                        ==========   ==========

         Diluted earnings per share                     $     0.21   $     0.16
                                                        ==========   ==========
</TABLE>


----------
(1)      For the three months ended March 31, 1998, calculated assuming exercise
         of options for 3,152,111 shares of common stock at prices ranging from
         $1.25 to $35.13 per share and assumed repurchase of shares at the
         average market price of $28.53 computed as of the beginning of the
         period. For the three months ended March 31, 1997, calculated assuming
         exercise of options for 2,261,878 shares of common stock at prices
         ranging from $1.25 to $30.63 per share and assumed repurchase of shares
         at the average market price per share of $28.49 as of the beginning of
         the period.




                                       23
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Andres MENDOZA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40439

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Juan Andres Mendoza-Martinez, White Deer, PA, pro se.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Andres Mendoza-Martinez (Mendoza), federal prisoner #80079-179, was convicted of conspiracy to transport and transporting an undocumented alien for private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(B)(i), and he was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment. Represented by appointed counsel, Mendoza filed a direct appeal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirmed that conviction in July 2009. *United States v. Mendoza-Martinez,*329 Fed.Appx. 563, 563 (2009).

In March 2010, Mendoza filed a motion seeking to have the district court reinstate its order denying his direct appeal or, alternatively, to have the district court recall this court’s mandate so that he could petition for rehearing or file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The district court denied the order as transparently frivolous. Further, finding that Mendoza’s appeal from the denial of that motion was not taken in good faith, the district court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Mendoza has now filed a motion in this court seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

On appeal, Mendoza intends to argue that he was effectively denied his right to *478appeal because appointed counsel did not confer with him regarding the issues to be presented on appeal, never forwarded him a courtesy copy of the appellate brief, and never informed him that his conviction had been affirmed. While Mendoza had the ultimate authority to decide whether to take an appeal, counsel was not required to consult with Mendoza regarding the appellate issues to be raised. *See Jones v. Barnes,*463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983).

Mendoza also argues that counsel’s omissions prejudiced him because it placed him in the position of not being able to file a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We first note that a year has not yet passed since we affirmed Mendoza’s conviction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). With regard to Mendoza’s allegations of ineffectiveness by counsel, we decline to address those claims as the record has not been sufficiently developed. *United States v. Higdon,*832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.1987).

Because Mendoza has not shown his appeal “involves legal points arguable on their merits” *Howard, v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983), Mendoza’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied. Mendoza’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed January 6,

respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed January 7,

and appellant’s response to respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed January 13,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (157 Or App 703, 971 P2d 914 (1998)) modified and adhered to as modified February 17, 1999

#### Professor Eric M. HOLMES, Appellant, *v.*WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY, *Respondent.*

(9507-05266; CA A95864)

975 P2d 922

James T. McDermott, Steven C. Berman and Ball Janik LLP, for petition and response.

Paul C. Buchanan for petition.

Before Deits, Chief Judge, and Warren, Haselton, Armstrong and Wollheim, Judges.

HASELTON, J.

Deits, C. J., concurring in part; dissenting in part.

*487HASELTON, J.

Plaintiff petitions for reconsideration, contending that, in our original opinion, 157 Or App 703, 971 P2d 914 (1998), we failed to address certain arguments pertaining to his breach of contract claim that he raised in his initial briefing. We grant reconsideration and adhere to our original opinion. Although our opinion did not specifically address plaintiffs arguments that there were triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff was actually discharged by defendant on or before July 29, 1993, we considered and rejected those arguments. We reiterate that rejection without further discussion.

Defendant also petitions for reconsideration, asserting that one aspect of our discussion of the record was erroneous. In particular, defendant takes issue with footnote two of our opinion, which read as follows:

> “At oral argument on appeal, Willamette argued, for the first time, that it would have been futile to grant Holmes a one-year unpaid leave of absence to undergo treatment at COPAC, because, without drawing pay, he would have been unable to fund his treatment. Holmes responded, also for the first time at oral argument, that that simply was not true — that because of a COBRA-based continuing entitlement to health benefits, he could have gone to COPAC, even if he wasn’t drawing salary as a faculty member. Willamette’s “unpaid leave would have been firtile” contention is not properly before us. That argument, which is necessarily factual, was not raised below and is utterly unsupported on the evidentiary record.” 157 Or App at 707 n 2.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that defendant’s objection is, in part, well taken. Accordingly, we modify the final sentence of footnote two to read as follows:

> “That argument, which is necessarily factual, was not developed below or on appeal in any fashion that is susceptible to appellate review.”

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

*488DEITS, C. J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority’s disposition of the petition for reconsideration. In all other respects, I adhere to my separate opinion in our original decision. Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s disposition of the contract claim and dissent from its disposition of the statutory claim.

Warren, J., joins in this opinion.