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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,276
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  935,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                     42,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,217,900
<PP&E>                                       2,705,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                 653,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,654,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,820,536
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,772
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,346,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,654,962
<SALES>                                      2,439,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,554,964
<CGS>                                        1,365,322
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,408,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,849,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               156,841
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,977,158)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,977,158)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,977,158)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.52)
        

</TABLE>
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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. McNulty                            
|John E. McNulty                                
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 3, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Financial Officer) pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



We, David C. Collins and Nicholas R. Schacht, certify that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, 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 periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Statement as of the date first written below.



Dated: February 8, 2005



/s/ DAVID C. COLLINSDavid C. CollinsChief Executive Officer/s/ NICHOLAS R. SCHACHTNicholas R. SchachtPresident(Principal Financial Officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5683 

To improve certain administrative operations of the Office of the Architect 

of the Capitol, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2010 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To improve certain administrative operations of the Office 

of the Architect of the Capitol, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONSOLIDATION OF STAFF POSITIONS. 

4 (a) CONSOLIDATION.—Section 108 of the Legislative 

5 Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1849) is 

6 amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 108. The Architect of the Capitol may fix the 

8 rate of basic pay for not more than 32 positions at a rate 

9 not to exceed the highest total rate of pay for the Senior 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5683 IH

1 Executive Service under subchapter VIII of chapter 53 of 

2 title 5, United States Code, for the locality involved.’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1203(e) of 

4 the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 (2 

5 U.S.C. 1805(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (3). 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply with respect to pay periods begin8 ning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

9 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LONG-TERM LEASES 

10 OF REAL PROPERTY. 

11 (a) AUTHORITY.—Section 1202(a)(2) of the Legisla12 tive Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 (41 U.S.C. 253l– 

13 7(a)(2)) is amended by striking the period at the end and 

14 inserting the following: ‘‘, except that in applying such sec15 tion to the Architect of the Capitol, the term ‘multiyear 

16 contract’ shall include a lease of real property for more 

17 than one, but not more than 10, program years.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

19 subsection (a) shall apply to contracts entered into on or 

20 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Maehado, Respondent, *v.*Bradford, Appellant.

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 26, 1890.)

Appeal from eleventh district court.

Argued before Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.

*S. Baker,*for appellant. *A. Lamont,*for respondent.

Ho opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
NO. 12-18-00183-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GEORGIA PATRICK LEWIS, AKA 

GEORGIA P. LEWIS, AKA GEORGIA 

LEWIS, AKA GEORGIA MAE LEWIS, 

AKA GEORGIA M. LEWIS, GEORGIA 

LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY DBA 

DRAYCATAN ELECTRIC, 

APPELLANT

V.

ELLIOTT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC.,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 145TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

On July 10, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the filing fee in this 

appeal is due. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit the filing fee 

on or before July 20, 2018, would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, including 

dismissal of the case without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The date for remitting 

the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request.

Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered July 31, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2018

NO. 12-18-00183-CV

GEORGIA PATRICK LEWIS, AKA GEORGIA P. LEWIS, AKA GEORGIA LEWIS, 

AKA GEORGIA MAE LEWIS, AKA GEORGIA M. LEWIS, GEORGIA LEWIS, 

INDIVIDUALLY DBA DRAYCATAN ELECTRIC,

Appellant

V.

ELLIOTT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC.,

Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court 

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. C1733067)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
(7 Misc. Rep. 709.)

#### PIONIER v. ALEXANDER.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

April 2, 1894.)

Judgment—Variance—Pleading and Pboop.

Where plaintiff is entitled to the amount sued for or nothing, judgment for part of such amount cannot stand.

Appeal from third district court.

Action by Alfred Pionier against John E. Alexander to recover wages alleged to be due. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, rendered by the justice without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BISCHOFF and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Henry G. Harris, for appellant.

Elias Rosenthal, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of $152.50, the amount claimed being made up of wages for 10 weeks at $15 per week, and an item of $2.50 for materials furnished. By the plaintiff’s evidence it was sought to establish the existence of a contract of hiring for these 10 weeks, and the plaintiff’s due performance. To the contrary appears the defendant’s evidence that there was no such contract, that plaintiff had been “laid off,” and that $40 had been paid him by defendant from time to time, more as an act of charity than for any other reason. Plaintiff admitted that •$15 had been paid him when computing the amount of his claim, as appears from the bill of particulars. The justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $58.50, exclusive of costs, and from this judgment the defendant appeals.

In view of the rule that a judgment must be secundum allegata ■et probata, it is clear that this appeal should prevail. By accepting the plaintiff’s evidence as true, the justice should have awarded the full amount claimed. On the other hand, had he believed the defendant’s witnesses, a judgment for the defendant should have resulted. It is true that a recovery of $127.50 might have been had, in view of the defendant’s testimony that he'had paid plaintiff $25 more than such plaintiff admitted having received during the period in question; ; but- in no aspect of the case is the judgment, as ren*158dered, to be supported. See Fuld v. Kahn, 4 Misc. Rep. 600, 24 N. Y. Supp. 558. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs-to abide the event.
Unassociated Document




EXHIBIT 10.1(b)







SECOND AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE LEASE







THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 12th day of August, 1999, by and between TIPPMANN PROPERTIES, INC., agent for JOHN V. TIPPMANN, SR.,(hereinafter referred to as “Lessor”), and TOWER FINANCIAL CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as “Lessee”), and WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a Real Estate Lease dated January 1, 1999, First Amended on March 8, 1999, currently covering approximately 14,091 usable square feet of premises commonly known as 116 East Berry Street, Suite 100, Fort Wayne, Indiana;







AND WHEREAS, Lessee and Lessor are desirous of leasing approximately six thousand nine hundred twenty-four (6,924) square feet of additional office space located on the second (2nd) floor East side.







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
The Leased Premises shall be increased to reflect approximately six thousand nine hundred twenty-four (6,924) square feet of additional office space as depicted on the attached Exhibit “A” Area 1.













	
  

	
2.

	
Beginning October 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, the monthly rent for the additional 6,924 square feet shall be Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twelve and 88/100th Dollars ($2,812.88).













	
  

	
3.

	
Beginning January 1, 2000, the rent of the approximately six thousand nine hundred twenty-four (6,924) square feet of additional office space shall be the same as the existing Lease rates in effect and shall be concurrent with the existing rent structure as set in Section 4. Rent.













	
  

	
4.

	
So long as Lessor has not received a prior bona fide offer from a third party to lease the mezzanine area on the west side of the Leased Premises (“West Mezzanine Space”) approximately 12,617 square feet. Lessee shall have the right, on five (5) business days notice to Lessor, to lease such West Mezzanine Space, on terms and conditions as set forth in the Lease, and for same per square foot rental rate that is then in effect (subject to increase as provided herein).













	
  

	
5.

	
Except as hereby amended, all other terms and conditions contained in the original Real Estate Lease are hereby reaffirmed and left unchanged by the terms of this First Amendment.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Second Amendment on the day and year first above written.








	
TIPPMANN PROPERTIES INC., Agent

	  	
TOWER FINANCIAL CORPORATION


	
for John V. Tippmann, Sr.   (“Lessor”)

	  	
(“Lessee”)


	  	  	  	  	  
	
BY:

	
/s/ Charles E. Tippmann

	  	
BY:

	
/s/ Kevin J. Himmelhaver

	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	
PRINTED:

	
Charles E. Tippmann

	  	
PRINTED:

	
Kevin J. Himmelhaver
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Martin, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered February 9, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea without inquiring further as to whether he was knowingly waiving his potential justification defense. However, having failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty, the defendant has failed to preserve this claim for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636). In any event, the record demonstrates that both the court and the defense counsel inquired as to whether the defendant understood that by pleading guilty he waived his right to raise a justification defense. The defendant acknowledged that he understood and, thereafter, he made a knowing and voluntary waiver of that defense *(see, People v McZorn,*121 AD2d 473, *lv denied*68 NY2d 771; *cf., People v Quiles,*72 AD2d 610). The record further amply demonstrates that the court conducted a detailed plea allocution which fully satisfied the requirements of *People v Harris*(61 NY2d 9).

We also find that the defendant’s arguments with respect to those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress his inculpatory statements to law enforcement officials and certain identification testimony have been waived by his guilty plea because the defendant specifically withdrew his motion and pleaded guilty prior to a judicial resolution of his suppression claims *(see, People v Fernandez,*67 NY2d 686, 688; *People v Plummer,*122 AD2d 285, *lv denied*68 NY2d 916; *People v Pescatore,*102 AD2d 834). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
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 MicroSignal Corporation 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"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 operation of the Company.



Date: May 28 2004                /s/ Dr. Lawrence Madoff
                                -----------------------------
                                   Dr. Lawrence Madoff
                            President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 24, 2012

p1017 

# Order

October 24, 2012

145439

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145439

COA: 303443

Kent CC: 10

- 005678

- FH

ERIC ANDREW KLOOSTERMAN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2012

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 10.30
                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     AGREEMENT  made as of the 1st day of January 1999,  by and between  MALCOLM
BECKER  (hereinafter  referred to as the  "Employee"),  residing at 82 Coleridge
Street, Brooklyn, New York 11235, and BREAKING WAVES, INC. (hereinafter referred
to as the "Company"),  a New York corporation with principal  offices located at
112 West 34th Street, New York, New York 10120.

                              W I T N E S S E T H :

     WHEREAS,  the Company and  Employee  entered into an  Employment  Agreement
dated November 27, 1996 and an Amendment to Employment  Agreement  dated January
1, 1998;

     WHEREAS, Employee desires to increase the amount of normal business time he
shall devote to the business of the Company;

     WHEREAS,  the Company is amenable to the  increase of time  Employee  shall
devote to the  business of the  Company  and  desires to increase  the salary of
Employee to conform to such increase; and

     WHEREAS,  the Company and the  Employee  consequently  desire to amend such
Employment Agreement to reflect the foregoing;

     NOW THEREFORE,  in consideration of the mutual promises made by the Company
and Employee,  and the terms and conditions hereafter set forth, the receipt and
adequacy of such  consideration  being  mutually  acknowledged,  the Company and
Employee hereby agree to the following:

     2. Article III, Paragraph (A) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended
to revise Employee's salary and shall read as follows:

     Commencing  on January 1, 1999,  the Company shall pay to Employee a salary
at the rate of $70,000  per annum  until  November  27,  1999  (payable in equal
weekly  installments  or  pursuant to such  regular  pay periods  adopted by the
Company) (the "Base Salary").

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         <S>                                                                    <C>  
         BREAKING WAVES, INC.                                                   EMPLOYEE

By:        /s/ Harold Rashbaum                                                   /s/ Malcolm Becker
         Harold Rashbaum                                                        Malcolm Becker
         President
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,487
<PP&E>                                         144,705
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,476
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,892
<COMMON>                                        81,819
<OTHER-SE>                                          16
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,340
<SALES>                                         51,989
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,989
<CGS>                                           46,606
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,689)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,231)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,231)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)


</TABLE>
1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

JESSIE AARON BARKEMEYER 

Respondent 

Docket Number 2023-0395 

Enforcement Activity No. 7794506 

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

On November 1, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. After carefully reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I 

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 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. 

Done and dated this 22nd day of December 2023, 

at Houston, Texas 

______________________________ 

HON. TOMMY CANTRELL 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Philip S. Hadji took the oath of office on September 28, 2023, as a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Philip S. Hadji took the oath of office on September 28, 2023, as a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. nominated Judge Hadji on June 7, 2023, the United States Senate confirmed him on September 21, 2023, and the President appointed him to a 15-year term on September 28, 2023. Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan of the United States Court of Federal Claims administered the oath of office.

For Judge Hadji's biography, please click here.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400