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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING BALANCE SHEETS OF ORPHAN MEDICAL, INC. AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE
RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            3,412,566
<SECURITIES>                                      2,008,627
<RECEIVABLES>                                       756,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                        113,725
<INVENTORY>                                         258,996
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6,435,263
<PP&E>                                              518,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                      180,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6,773,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,358,753
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             61,810
<OTHER-SE>                                        2,408,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6,773,626
<SALES>                                           1,521,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,521,971
<CGS>                                               217,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       217,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2,976,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (20,142)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,651,359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1,651,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,651,359)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.27)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3317 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3317

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 101 West Main Street in Waterville, New York, as the ``Corporal John 
                       P. Sigsbee Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2008

 Mrs. Clinton introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 101 West Main Street in Waterville, New York, as the ``Corporal John 
                       P. Sigsbee Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CORPORAL JOHN P. SIGSBEE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 101 West Main Street in Waterville, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Corporal John P. Sigsbee Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
John P. Sigsbee Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. DOUGLAS.

No. COA06-352.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Harnett (05CRS51455).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001020017
<NAME>                        ALLSTAR SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,538
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (358)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,928
<PP&E>                                           5,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,425)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,128
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,028
<SALES>                                        167,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               167,173
<CGS>                                          145,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,639)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (541)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,098)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,098)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.25)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11

PAULA FINANCIAL AND SUBSIDIARIES  Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share(In thousands, except per share data)

|                                                                             |  | Three Months Ended
September 30, |           | Nine Months Ended
September 30, |   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------- | --
|
|Net income (loss)                                                            |  | $                                | 1,184     |                                 | ($
|                                                                             |  |                                  |           |                                 |   
|Weighted average shares outstanding for calculating basic earnings per share |  |                                  | 5,929,501 |                                 |   
|Options                                                                      |  |                                  |          |                                 |   
|                                                                             |  |                                  |           |                                 |   
|Total shares for calculating diluted earnings per share                      |  |                                  | 5,929,501 |                                 |   
|                                                                             |  |                                  |           |                                 |   
|Basic earnings (loss) per share                                              |  | $                                | 0.20      |                                 | ($
|                                                                             |  |                                  |           |                                 |   
|Diluted earnings (loss) per share                                            |  | $                                | 0.20      |                                 | ($
|                                                                             |  |                                  |           |                                 |   
|                                                                             |  |                                  |           |                                 |   

---

QuickLinks
STATE v. SMITH.

No. COA06-1451.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 4, 2007.

Certification Date September 24, 2007.

Appeal from Lincoln (05CRS53408, 05CRS53409).

Case reported without published opinion Dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AMY HAIR,

Appellant,

v.

CAMMY HAIR,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-2063

[March 18, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Timothy P. McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502013DR003796XX.

Michael L. Cohen, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection against 

domestic violence.

Section 741.30(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that a family or 

household member may file a petition for protection against domestic 

violence if that person is “either the victim of domestic violence as defined 

in s. 741.28 or has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent 

danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence.” See 

Malchan v. Howard, 29 So. 3d 453, 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Domestic 

violence is defined as “any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated 

battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, 

kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in 

physical injury or death of one family or household member by another 

family or household member.” § 741.28(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). 

To determine whether the victim’s fear of imminent domestic violence 

is reasonable, “‘the trial court must consider the current allegations, the 

parties’ behavior within the relationship, and the history of the 
- 2 -

relationship as a whole.’” Malchan, 29 So. 3d at 454 (quoting Giallanza v. 

Giallanza, 787 So. 2d 162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). 

In order to obtain an injunction against domestic violence, the 

petitioner must be the object of “malicious harassment that consists at the 

very least of some threat of imminent violence, which excludes mere uncivil 

behavior that causes distress or annoyance.” Young v. Young, 96 So. 3d 

478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “An isolated incident of domestic violence 

that occurred years before the filing of the petition for injunction is 

insufficient.” Arnold v. Santana, 122 So. 3d 512, 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 

In this case, the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence that she 

was a victim of domestic violence or was in imminent danger of becoming 

a victim of domestic violence. That a daughter does not wish to see or 

interact with her mother is not a basis for the issuance of a domestic 

violence restraining order. See Stone v. Stone, 128 So. 3d 239, 241 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2013). Nor did appellant’s violation of an order entered as part 

of a domestic relations case support the entry of the restraining order in 

this case.

We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the final 

judgment of injunction for protection.

GROSS, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of RFP Express, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Zimri C. Putney, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:





|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m and 78(d); 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:  February 11, 2004 |                                                                                             
|------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                          |                                                                                             
|                          | By:  /s/ Zimri C. PutneyZimri C. Putney, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 21


Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Allin Corporation wholly owns the following subsidiaries:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                              Additional Names under
                                                                            State of        which Subsidiary Conducts
        Name of Subsidiary              Former Name of Subsidiary        Incorporation               Business
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                  <C>                               <C>                 <C>
Allin Consulting of Pennsylvania,    KCS Computer Services, Inc.       Pennsylvania        Bank Consulting Services,
 Inc.                                                                                      Allin Consulting
Allin Corporation of California      Kent Consulting Group, Inc.       California          Allin Consulting
Allin Interactive Corporation        SeaVision, Inc.                   Delaware            SeaVision
Allin Digital Imaging Corp.          PhotoWave, Inc.                   Delaware
Allin Network Products, Inc.         Netright, Inc.                    California
Allin Holdings Corporation                                             Delaware
</TABLE>

Except as noted above, each subsidiary does business exclusively under its
corporate name, with or without the corporate indicator.



                                                                       Exh. 21-A
LITTLE RIVER SOIL FARM v. HILL.

COA06-1034.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 15, 2007.

Certification Date June 4, 2007.

Appeal from Wake (00CVS13543).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR PART 52 
          - [R05-OAR-2005-OH-0002; FRL-7958-4] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; reopening of the public comment period. 

# SUMMARY:

EPA is reopening the comment period for a proposed rule published June 27, 2005 (70 FR 36901). On June 27, 2005, EPA proposed to disapprove revisions to Ohio rules that provide for use of continuous opacity monitoring data but allow more exceedances of the general opacity limit in cases where the owner of an eligible large coal fired boiler opts to use these data for determining compliance. EPA also proposed to approve other elements of Ohio's rule submittal that clarified Ohio's rules. In response to requests from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and from the law firm of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, EPA is reopening the comment period through August 24, 2005. All comments received on or before August 24, 2005 will be entered into the public record and considered by EPA before taking final action on the proposed rule. 

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before August 24, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2005-OH-0002, to: John Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Phone: (312) 886-4447. E-mail:                         *mooney.john@epa.gov*. Additional instructions to comment can be found in the notice of proposed rulemaking published June 27, 2005 (70 FR 36901).                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        John Summerhays, Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number: (312) 353-4761, E-mail Address:                         *summerhays.john@epa.gov*.                     

Dated: August 2, 2005. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 05-16811 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             36,981
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     905,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                     4,074,274 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,077,815 
<PP&E>                                          1,853,042 
<DEPRECIATION>                                    327,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  6,674,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,991,351
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                           500
<COMMON>                                              400
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,673,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    6,674,421
<SALES>                                        10,255,843
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,255,843
<CGS>                                           9,466,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   9,466,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 17,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    53,260
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                51,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       51,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.01
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gabriel Valles, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 588]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered June 22, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4Va to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to give defendant a second chance to complete a drug treatment program after he originally absconded, in direct violation of the terms of his agreement and with the express understanding that if he did so he would be sentenced to 4V2 to 9 years. Defendant’s constitutional argument is unpreserved *(see People v Ruz,*70 NY2d 942, 943 [1988]; *People v Ingram,*67 NY2d 897, 899 [1986]), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim, we would reject it.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TIMOTHY P. MURRAY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 13 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.