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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          23,521
<SECURITIES>                                    20,074
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,001
<INVENTORY>                                        296
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,707
<PP&E>                                           7,388
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,622
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,331
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,084
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,909)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,889
<SALES>                                         13,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,698
<CGS>                                            2,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (672)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (402)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (402)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>





                                EXHIBIT 1.02
                               --------------


                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION



                                    115
</Page>


<PAGE>

     CANADA                                                          NUMBER

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA                                         216983



                        Province of British Columbia
                 Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

                           REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

                                COMPANY ACT


                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION



                           I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT


                          RED FORK RESOURCES INC.


            HAS THIS DAY BEEN INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANY ACT





GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE

AT VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA,

THIS 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1980



''B. Beckwith''
Asst. Deputy Registrar of Companies

                                    116
</Page>
Exhibit 32 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002 Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of
Astrotech Corporation (Astrotech), that, to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Astrotech on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Astrotech. Date: May 17, 2010/s/ Thomas B. Pickens, IIIThomas B. Pickens, IIIChief Executive Officer/s/ John M. PorterJohn M. PorterSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Astrotech and will be retained
by Astrotech and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  3
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

In connection with the Annual Report of GeoPetro Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Stuart J. Doshi , Chief Executive Officer, and Paul D. Maniscalco, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| Dated:   March 31, 2011 | /s/   Stuart J. Doshi                                           |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Stuart   J. Doshi                                               |
|                         | President,   Chief Executive Officer                            |
|                         | and   Chairman of the Board                                     |
|                         |                                                            |
| Dated:   March 31, 2011 | /s/Paul   D. Maniscalco                                         |
|                         | Paul   D. Maniscalco                                            |
|                         | Interim   Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GeoPetro Resources Company and will be retained by GeoPetro Resources Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----

*                 This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-15-1998
<CASH>                                             165,955
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      113,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,732,003
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,290,060
<PP&E>                                           4,503,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,015,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,722,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,182,758
<BONDS>                                          4,764,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,544
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,135,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,722,165
<SALES>                                          7,545,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,545,380
<CGS>                                            5,314,311
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,877,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   206,058
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 191,775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (44,470)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15,165
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (59,635)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (217,610)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (277,245)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (1.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (1.86)
        

</TABLE>
#### DEPIERRIS v. SLAVEN.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

1. Abatement—Another Action Pending. .

A petition in the surrogate’s court to compel an administrator to account cannot be maintained where an action by petitioner in the supreme court, for the same purpose, is pending.

2. Parties—Oath as to Interest.

A surrogate is not bound to entertain an application merely on the oath of petitioner that he has an interest in the matte»

Appeal from surrogate’s court, New York county.

Proceeding by Maud E. Slaven Depierris to compel Ellen A. Slaven to settle her accounts as executor of the will of Moses A. Slaven, deceased. The proceeding was dismissed, and petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and PARKER and BARRETT, JJ.

A. H. Holmes, for appellant.

A. H. Joline, for respondent.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

We see no reason for interfering with the conclusion arrived at by the surrogate. There were two grounds upon which his decision seems to have rested: First, that the appellant was not a party in interest; and, secondly, that, having commenced an action in the supreme court for an accounting, she would not be allowed to maintain an independent proceeding in the surrogate’s court.

It is urged upon the part of the appellant that, she having sworn that she was a party in interest, the surrogate had no discretion, and, as the supreme court may not entertain the action for the accounting, the surrogate erred in dismissing the proceeding before him. We are not aware that it has yet been established that because a party swears that he has an interest, and the papers, upon their face, show that he has not, the surrogate is bound to entertain any application by such party. The interest of the appellant can only be established by a successful maintenance of her suit in the supreme court, and it seems to be time enough for the consideration of the question of accounting when she has established an interest, which, upon the record, apparently does not exist. Furthermore, the appellant has chosen her forum; and, having filed a bill in the supreme court for an accounting, there is no reason why she should have an independent proceeding. If the court should refuse to entertain that branch of her action which pertains to the accounting, it will be time enough then, in case the court shall decide that she has an interest, for the appellant to pursue her remedies in the surrogate’s court. The order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0709 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. CISSY DEEN MANYHIDES,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 17 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 12 2024

03/12/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0709
#### Wachtershauser *v.*Smith.

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

June 2, 1890.)

Evidence—Parol to Explain Writing.

In an action for the breach of a written contract of employment for a “season, ” in which the duration of the season is not specified, paroi evidence is admissible to define the term.

Appeal from fifth district court.

Action by Otto Wachtershauser against Sydney Smith for breach of contract *of*employment. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Argued before Larremore, C. J., and Bookstayer, J.

*E. R. Volmer,*for appellant. *H. C. Kudlich,*for respondent.

Larremore, C. J.

This is an action for an alleged breach of contract of employment. The answer interposed a general denial, with an allegation that the defendant was discharged for cause. The rate of recovery was based upon the following letter:

> “July 19, 1889.

> *“Mr. Otto*Wachtershauser—Dear Sir: Your letter received. I can give you work for the season, commencing on the 12th of August, and, if possible, will give you steady work, but cannot promise it. If you are in H. Y., stop in and see me.

> Yours, truly, Sydney E. Smith.”

In pursuance of the letter above mentioned, plaintiff went into the defendant’s employ on August 12, 1889. The middle of the third week he was discharged, as defendant alleges, on account of his imperfect work, and for incompetency, receiving his wages for the time that he worked. The plaintiff claims that the word “season” meant employment until December 15, 1889, and sues for damages for breach of the contract, from August 28 to December 15, 1889, at the rate of $13 per week. The defendant testified that there is no period of time knowp as a “season”, in the trade, and was corroborated by two of his workmen, who had been in his employ for several years. It will be seen that the letter upon which this action is predicated specifies no time going to show the duration of the term “season” therein mentioned. In such a case paroi evidence is admissible for the definition of such term. The court below believed plaintiff’s testimony upon this point, and, although the defendant’s witnesses gave a contrary interpretation, the court had a right to accept plaintiff’s definition.

It appears, however, according to defendant’s theory, that plaintiff was discharged for incompetency, and, as that was a disputed question of fact in the case, the finding of the court cannot be reviewed on this appeal. It also appeared that the plaintiff had been in the defendant’s employ for over a year previous to the contract last mentioned, and that he had given him a recommendation when such employment terminated. There are no important questions of law arising in this case. The court below is the judge of the credibility of witnesses, and of all questions of fact. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
---



Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Ernesto Bertarelli, the Vice Chairman of the Board, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Serono S.A. (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies that:




(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


****By:
/s/ Ernesto BertarelliErnesto BertarelliVice-Chairman of the Board,Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 25, 2004
EXHIBIT 10.5
                             Promissory Note

$4282.74                                                  December 31, 2003
                                                          Newport Beach, CA


     On Demand for value received the undersigned promises to pay in lawful
money of the United States of America to the order of Procyon Corporation,
nominee or assignee, the sum of Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Two
Dollars and Seventy-Four Cents ($4282.74), with interest from December 31,
2003 until paid at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

     Should interest not be paid, it shall thereafter bear interest as the
principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed an
amount equal to simple interest on the principal at the maximum rate
permitted by law.  The undersigned hereby waives presentment of payment,
protest, notice of protest, notice of nonpayment, and diligence in bringing
suit, and further agrees, in case suit is instituted, to collect this
Promissory Note or any portion thereof, to pay such additional sum for
attorneys' fees as the Court may adjudge reasonable in such suit.

                              Cygni Investments, Inc.

                              By:  /s/ Carl Suter
                                   Carl Suter, President
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before GASTON, ATTANASIO, and HOUTZ Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Jorge A. GRADIZ , Jr. Sergeant (E

- 5), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 20 2 000183 (f rev)

_________________________ Decided: 10 May 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

u

pon further review
Military Judge s : Jeffrey V. Munoz (trial) Stephen F. Keane ( E ntry of J udgment)
Sentence adjudged 29 May 2020 by a general court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of a military judge sitting al one
. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 18 months , and a bad

- conduct discharge. 1

1 The convening authority suspended the reduction to E

- 1 for a period of six months

.United States v. Gradiz , NMCCA No. 20 20 00183 Opinion of the Court

2 For Appellant: Commander Michael E. Maffei , JAGC, USN

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : This case is before us for review a second time. During our initial review, we set aside the Convening Authority Action [ CA Action ] and Entry of Judgment [ EOJ ] and remanded for new po s t

- trial processing. 2 Following completion of the new CA Action and EOJ, the case has returned to the Court for completion of appellate review. After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact a nd that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 3 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

2 United States v. Gradiz , No. 202000183, 2021 CCA LEXIS 167 (N

- M

. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 7, 2021) (unpublished).

3 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM BRUNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 302 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM BRUNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 303 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of February, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Chinawe.com Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Vivian Chu, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Vivian Chu
Chief Financial Officer
May 30, 2003
#### ALLEN, Respondent, v. CLARK, Appellant.

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

May 17, 1894.)

Action by John Allen against Francis A. Clark.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

S. Lobenthal, for appellant.

Earley & Prendergast, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It is clear that we cannot review the evidence in order to determine whether there is a preponderance on the one side or the other. The general term of the city court has passed upon that, and its decision is final. The claim that the verdict is against the preponderance of evidence admits that there is some evidence to support the verdict. There is no other question raised in the joints of the appellant, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2022

NO. 03

- 22

- 00461

- CV

Joshua Burch , Appellant

v.

Planview Delaware, LLC , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 27, 2022 . Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that Joshua Burch has not prosecuted his appeal and did not

comply with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for

w ant of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court

and in the court below.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




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




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, the undersigned officer of DND Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:




To
      my
      knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      April 16, 2007


BY:
              /s/
                G.
                Dennis KeyG.
                    DENNIS
                    KEY
                  CHIEF
                    FINANCIAL
                    OFFICER
Argued and submitted January 21,

affirmed February 10,

petition for review denied May 25, 1999 (328 Or 594)

#### JOHN T. DAVIS, *Appellant, v.*Nicholas ARMENAKIS, Superintendent, Oregon State Correctional Institution, *Respondent.*

(97C-12695; CA A100701)

974 P2d 267

Steven H. Gorham argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and John T. Bagg, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Pham v. Thompson,*156 Or App 440, 965 P2d 482 (1998).