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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,822,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,654,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,486,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,655,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,709,000
<PP&E>                                       4,501,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,676,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,586,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,310,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    41,397,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (39,022,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,586,000
<SALES>                                     42,165,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,165,000
<CGS>                                       25,155,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,155,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               235,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,785,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,814,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,137,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    75,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,212,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,212,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register: August 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 156)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49208]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au00-12]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 15, 20, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 100, 140, 155,
166, 170, and 180


Exemption for Bilateral Transactions; a New Regulatory Framework
for Clearing Organizations; Rules Relating to Intermediaries of
Commodity Interest Transactions; and a New Regulatory Framework for
Multilateral Transaction Execution Facilities, Intermediaries and
Clearing Organizations

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Extension of comment period on proposed rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission published notices of
proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) concerning various aspects of a new
regulatory framework on June 22, 2000 (63 FR 38985, 63 FR 39008, 63 FR
39027, and 63 FR 39033). The NPRMs provided that comments should be
received on or before August 7, 2000. In response to requests from the
Association for Investment Management Research and eight agricultural
producer groups, the Commission has determined to extend the comment
period until August 21, 2000.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: As indicated in the NPRMs, comments should be submitted by
the specified date to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581. In addition, Comments may be sent by facsimile
transmission to facsimile number (202) 418-5521, or by electronic mail
to [email protected]. Reference should be made to the subjects
specified in the original NPRMs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul M. Architzel, Chief Counsel,
Division of Economic Analysis, Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
Three Lafayette Centre, 1125 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581.
Telephone: (202) 418-5260. E-mail: [[email protected]].

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 7, 2000 by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.
Edward W. Colbert,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-20353 Filed 8-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```

----

**========    RETURN TO INDEX ========**

----
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

J.D., FATHER OF A.D., A CHILD

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 4112

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

,

Appellee

.

__________________________ ____ _ _ _ ___ ____/

Opinion filed May 5, 2016

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for Seminole County

, Julian E. Collins , Judge.

Sara Howeller, Oviedo, for Appellant.

Gale F orman Collins, Appellate Co u nsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford , for

Guardian ad Litem

.

Rosemarie Farrell, Children's Legal
Services, Department of Children and Families, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

J.D. ("Appellant") , father of A.D., a child, appeals the trial court's order adjudicating

A.D. dependent. Appellant argues, and the Department of Children and Families properly

concedes, that no competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that2

Appellant and A.D.'s mother subjected A.D. to abuse as defined by section 39.01(2),

Florida Statutes (20 15). We agree and reverse the order adjudicating A.D. dependent. 1

REVERSED.

SAWAYA, BERGER, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

1 We note that the Guardian ad Litem Program ("GAL") does not concede error, arguing that we must affirm because the order adjudicating A.D. dependent makes findings regarding A.D.'s mother, who did not appeal. We disagree that Appellant lacks standing to c hallenge the trial court's order in its entirety. Reversal of a dependency adjudication is appropriate where only one parent appeals, despite findings relating to both parents

. See, e.g.

, S

. D. v. Dep't of Children & Family S ervs. , 42 So. 3d 938, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)

.
| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **2** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Colombian Coffee Federation, Inc.** |
|--|---------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 2/18/00 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 4 | PDF        SIZE: | 206        KB | PDF        LINK: | cf0005c002.p |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|-------------------|----------------|-------------------|--------------|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **1** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Coex        Coffee Intl. Inc.** |
|--|------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 2/18/00 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 | PDF        SIZE: | 55        KB | PDF        LINK: | cf0005c001.p |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|-------------------|---------------|-------------------|--------------|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
    Previous
Next
Last
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 Trivest Acquisition Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William Tay, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

TRIVEST ACQUISITION CORP.


/s/ William Tay
--------------------------------
By: William Tay
Title: Chief Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Director

Dated: May 7, 2008
#### Stone *vs.*Moore *et al.*

Where to a suit on certain promissory notes a plea was filed, alleging that the notes were given for the purchase money of land, and that the consideration had wholly failed, because the vendor represented the land to he fertile, to have a spring on it, and to be covered with hickory wood, all of which was false, such plea was properly stricken on demurrer, there being no plea of damages in abatement of the purchase money, and no offer to annul the contract, and it not appearing that the purchaser was deprived of the opportunity of inspecting the land for himself by the fraudulent acts or con-' duct of the vendor. Such things as the soil, timber or springs on land are open to inspection, and the purchaser is wilfully negligent if he fails to look and see for himself, and neither law nor eouity will relieve him from his own want of diligence.

November 17, 1885.

Fraud. Consideration. Pleadings. Warranty. Damages. *Laches.*Equity. Before Judge Willis. Chattahoochee Superior Court. March Term, 1885.

Reported in the decision.

C. J. Shipp ; O. J. Thornton, for plaintiff in error.

W. B. Butt, by S. J3. Hatcher, for defendants.

*566Blandford, Justice.

Moore sued Stone on several promissory notes. Stone filed a plea, in which he alleged that said notes were given lor land, and that the consideration of the same had wholly failed, because Moore represented that the land was fertile, and had a good spring on it, and was covered with hickory timber, all of which was false. This plea was demurred to by Moore. The courts sustained the demurrer, and this is the decision complained of. It will be noted that there is no allegation that Stone was prevented from examining the land by any act of Moore, and also there is no offer to rescind the contract made by Stone, as appears by the plea.

We think the demurrer well taken to the plea, under section 2635 of the Code, sub-sec. 4, and also section 2652. By this last section it is enacted that “ a breach of warranty does not annul the sale if executed, but gives the purchaser a right to damages. It may be pleaded in abatement of the purchase money.” There is no offer to annul the sale in this case, and there is no plea of any damages sustained by Stone in abatement of the purchase money. When the consideration of a contract is for land, the purchaser contracts with his eyes open, and if he is not in some way deprived of the opportunity of' inspecting the land for himself by the fraudulent acts or conduct of the vendor, he will not be heard to complain; such things as the soil growth or springs on the land are open to inspection, and' he is wilfully negligent if he fail to look and see for himself; it is his fault and negligence, and he cannot be heard, either at law or in equity, to complain of the conduct of the other party, the effects of which could have been averted by slight diligence on his part. Code, §3126.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Nidec Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  July 27, 2007



/s/  Yasunobu ToriyamaYasunobu Toriyama
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer and Director
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10011

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00195-TCB-RGV-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

HECTOR DELVAL-ESTRADA, 

a.k.a. Hector Ochoa Olguin,

a.k.a. Hector Joaquin Delval-Estrada,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(December 1, 2014)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-10011 Date Filed: 12/01/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Hector Delval-Estrada was sentenced to 40 months in prison after pleading 

guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). He contends 

that, because his prior aggravated felony (possession of cocaine with intent to 

distribute) is an element of the offense under subsection (b)(2) of § 1326 and was 

not listed in the indictment, he could not have been sentenced to more than the 

two-year maximum set forth in subsection (a) of the statute.

We reject Mr. Delval-Estrada’s argument. First, the Supreme Court has 

expressly held—in a case just like this one—that § 1326(b)(2) does not define a 

separate crime, and that the government is not required to charge the alien’s prior 

conviction in the indictment. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 

224, 226-27 (1998). Second, “we have specifically rejected the argument that 

Almendarez-Torres was undermined by Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000).]” United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir. 2006). “[W]e are 

bound to follow Almendarez–Torres unless and until the Supreme Court . . .

overrules that decision.” United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir. 

2001). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10011 Date Filed: 12/01/2014 Page: 2 of 2
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00416-CR

FAUSTINO ISRAEL ROBLES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-145-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Faustino Israel Robles attempts to appeal from his conviction for possession of a 

controlled substance. By letter dated November 8, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified 

Robles that the appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared that the trial court’s 

certificate of right of appeal indicated that Robles waived his right to appeal and had no 

right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); 25.2(d). The record contains a written 

waiver of appeal signed by Robles. The Clerk also warned Robles that the appeal 

would be dismissed unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed 
Robles v. State Page 2

showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. Robles filed a 

response arguing that his waiver of appeal was involuntary because he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Robles pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance 

pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only 

appeal 1) those matters raised by written motion filed and ruled upon before trial, or 2) 

after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2 (a)(2). Robles is 

not appealing a matter raised by motion filed before trial, and the trial court did not 

give permission for the appeal. A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to 

ascertain whether an appellant who plea bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 

25(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis 

for the appeal. Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Robles had 

no right of appeal because he was sentenced pursuant to the agreed terms of a plea 

bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions stated in Rule 25.2(a)(2). Id. In such 

circumstances, no inquiry into even possibly meritorious claims may be made. Id.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice
Robles v. State Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 18, 2012

Do not publish 

[CR25]
Exhibit 13.2

Certification of the Principal Financial Officer of

Quebecor Media Inc.

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 Quebecor Media Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year
ending December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jean-Francois Pruneau, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 20, 2013



/s/ Jean-François PruneauName:

Jean-François PruneauTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
sapx_ex102-2.htm




EXHIBIT10.2.2


 


 




 



 December 1, 2008

Seven Arts Pictures Inc.
f/s/o Peter M. Hoffman
6121 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 512
Los Angeles, California 90028

Re:  Employment Agreement Amendment

Gentlemen:

Please make reference to that certain Employment Agreement between you and us dated September 2, 2004 (the "Employment Agreement").  




 By the execution of this letter by you and us, the Term of the Employment Agreement shall be extended until December 31, 2013.  




Except as amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  Please confirm your agreement to the foregoing by signing below where indicated.

 
         Very truly yours, 




            SEVEN ARTS PICTURES PLC    
      By: __/s/ Elaine New____










 AGREED AND ACCEPTED

SEVEN ARTS PICTURES INC.

/s/ Peter Hoffman
________________________
Peter M. Hoffman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,312
<INVENTORY>                                      1,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,709
<PP&E>                                          37,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,507
<BONDS>                                            114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     40,100
<COMMON>                                       114,586
<OTHER-SE>                                     (58,617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,853
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,693
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,023
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                87,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,565)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (23,763)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (23,763)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.47)
        

</TABLE>