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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                                       238
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              9,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                               31,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          46,138
<PP&E>                                                    26,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                             7,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            67,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     35,921
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   9,604
<OTHER-SE>                                                13,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              67,239
<SALES>                                                   56,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          56,822
<CGS>                                                     50,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             50,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              179
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  71
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0.018
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0.018
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                 ------------

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

     In connection  with the Annual Report of Trans Energy,  Inc. (the Company )
on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  December  31,  2005,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, William
F. Woodburn,  Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/   WILLIAM F. WOODBURN
---------------------------------
William F. Woodburn
Principal Accounting Officer
May 22, 2006



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB 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 Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00339-CR Eggerston L. Dav

is, Appel lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 005268, H ONORABLE JULIE H. KO CUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM

Appe llantpl

eade d g ui l ty to possessi

ng m ore t han four grams

of cocai ne. SeeTe x. Heal th & Saf ety Code An

n. § 481.115(a), (d) (West Supp. 2001). The distri ct court adj udged him gui l ty and assessed puni shm

ent at impris onment for si x years, as ca lled fo rin a ple a b ar ga in ag r ee men t . Ap pe llant filed a g en er al n o t ice o f ap pe al.

Wh en a d efe nd an t ple ad s g uilt y t o a fe lo ny an d t he pu nis hment as se ss ed doe s n ot exceed that recommen

ded by the prosecuto r and agreed to by the defen dant, the notice of appea

l must sta te t hat t he appeal

is for a j urisdi

ctional defec t, o r that t he sub stance of the appe al was rai sed by wri tten moti on a nd rul ed on b ef ore tr i al , or that t he trial

court granted

per mission t o a ppe al. T ex. R. App. P . 25. 2(b)( 3). Appellant’s notice of appe al does not co mpl

y w ith this rule

and f ai ls to confer j urisd i cti on on th i s C our t. Whitt v. St

ate , No . 03 - 00 - 00 19 4- CR ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in Ap r il 19, 2001, no p et .) ; see also Cooper v. State , No. 1100 -99, s l i p op. at 6-8 (Te

x. Cri m . App. A

pril 4, 2001 ).2 The app eal is dismissed for want of jur isdict ion. Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Di sm i ss ed f or Wan t of Ju ri sd i cti on File d: June 29, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4120 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 311
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4120

                          [Report No. 113-421]

    To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the 
                           termination date.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2014

  Mr. Hoyer (for himself and Mr. Wolf) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

                             April 28, 2014

     Additional sponsors: Mr. Moran, Mr. Reichert, and Mr. Pascrell

                             April 28, 2014

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the 
                           termination date.

 

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT TERMINATION DATE 
              EXTENDED.

    Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Museum Act (Public Law 
106-492) is amended by striking ``13 years'' and inserting ``16 
years''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of this Act shall take effect as if this Act were 
enacted on November 8, 2013.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 311

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4120

                          [Report No. 113-421]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the 
                           termination date.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 28, 2014

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### Chad W. JONES, Complete Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 82168.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Sept. 2, 2003.

Ruth B. Sanders, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck Burgess, for respondent.

Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., J. Lawrence E. Mooney, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Chad W. Jones, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He contends the motion court clearly erred in finding his claim for jail time credit was not cognizable.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and Senior Judge Fitzpatrick 

HENRY COUNTY PALLET COMPANY, INC. AND 

 FORESTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2199-06-2 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 30, 2007 

MARCELO H. VAZQUES 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (R. Ferrell Newman; Newman & Wright, RLLP, on brief), for 

appellants. 

 (J. William Snyder, Jr.; Crumley & Associates, P.C., on brief), for 

appellee.1

 Henry County Pallet Company, Inc. and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Commission finding that (1) Marcelo H. Vazques (claimant) was not required to 

prove a change in condition since Deputy Commissioner Link’s February 7, 2005 opinion 

denying his previous request for a myoelectric prosthetic arm; (2) the myoelectric arm is 

reasonable and necessary medical treatment for claimant’s compensable right arm injury; and 

(3) his claim was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and the 

commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Vazques v. Henry County Pallet 

Company, Inc., VWC File No. 217-62-06 (Aug. 2, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and 

summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Appellee’s brief was not timely filed. 
- 2 - 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Marquis David PETERSON

No. COA17-150

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 3.4****AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS****OF****ADVOCAT INC.**The Bylaws Advocat Inc. are amended as set forth below.Section 5.1 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:     5.1 Stock Certificates. The capital stock of the corporation may be represented bycertificates or may be in uncertificated form. Notwithstanding the foregoing, every stockholdershall be entitled to a certificate or certificates of capital stock of the corporation uponrequest, in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors. Unless otherwise decided bythe Board, such certificates shall be signed by the President and the Secretary of the corporation,however, any or all of the signatures may be a facsimile. The corporation shall be entitled totreat the holder of record of any share or shares of stock of the corporation, whether certificatedor uncertificated, as the holder in fact thereof and, accordingly, shall not be bound to recognizeany equitable or other claim to or interest in such share or shares on the part of any otherperson, whether or not it has actual or other notice thereof, except as provided by law.Unanimously approved by the Board of Directors at a meeting held on November 5, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1894

MARY PENLAND; CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR., 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

 v. 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; SOUTH 

CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District 

Judge. (7:07-cv-03203-HMH) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mary Penland, Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellants Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Mary Penland and Charles W. Penland, Sr., appeal the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and dismissing the civil rights action the 

Penlands filed against the State of South Carolina. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Penland 

v. South Carolina, No. 7:07-cv-03203-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2008). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina, v. Ramone J. ALSTON, Defendant.

No. COA16-1185

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

AFFIRMED. REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR.
Maxine A. EASTON, Plaintiff, v. Allen Toby HEDGEPETH, et al., Defendant.

No. COA15-982

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

DISMISSED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
##### 



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 Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ending March 31, 2005 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Giardina, 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 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; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial conditions and result of operations of the Company. /s/ Robert GiardinaTown Sports International Holdings, Inc.Chief Executive OfficerOffice of the PresidentMay 3, 2005
CORWIN v. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO PLC, et al.

56PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 21, 2017

Alan W. Duncan, Attorney at Law, Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jason M. Leviton, Attorney at Law, Joel A. Fleming, Attorney at Law, for Corwin, Robert (Dr.), et al.

Michael L. Robinson, Attorney at Law, H. Brent Helms, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Gary A. Bornstein, Attorney at Law, for British American Tobacco PLC.

Ronald R. Davis, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, W. Andrew Copenhaver, Attorney at Law, James A. Dean, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Robert C. Micheletto, Attorney at Law, Thomas E. Lynch, Attorney at Law, Andrew S. Kleinfeld, Attorney at Law, for Reynolds American, Inc., et al.

James P. McLoughlin, Jr., Attorney at Law, Mark A. Nebrig, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Watkins, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Karen Seymour, Attorney at Law, Frank Schall, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Jobin, Luc, et al.

Alan M. Ruley, Attorney at Law, William K. Davis, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of July 2017 by North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of July 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
STATE of North Carolina, v. Terrence Dominick MCINTYRE, Defendant.

No. COA16-801

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

NO ERROR.
#### William A. Wells et al., Appellants, *v.*Salvatore Nunziata et al., Defendants, and Biagio Prevete, Defendant-Respondent. William A. Wells et al., Respondents, *v.*Salvatore Nunziata et al., Defendants, and Margaret P. Oresto, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

June 18, 1943.

*533
      *Julius Brandes*for appellants in first action and for respondents in second action.

*Abraham Apat*for Biagio Prevete, defendant-respondent in first action, and for Margaret P. Oresto, defendant-appellant in second action.

*534Memorandum *Per Curiam.*

Judgment unanimously modified on the law by striking therefrom the provision dismissing the complaint as to the defendant Prevete and by inserting a direction that plaintiffs have judgment against him as demanded in the complaint and as so modified, judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs to plaintiffs. So far as this record discloses, the defendant Prevete never parted with his interest in the real property. .He was a joint obligor. He was not simply a surety. His relation to the property or the mortgage debt was not changed by his alleged failure to sign the second extension agreement (2 Williston on Contracts [rev. ed.] § 340). The plaintiffs never knowingly contracted with only three of the joint obligors. Defendant-respondent is estopped from claiming any release by plaintiffs’ acceptance of the second extension, agreement. Prom defendant-respondent’s own testimony it must be found that the codefendant brother-in-law was the agent of the former and the knowledge of that agent was defendant’s. That agent caused the extension agreement to be delivered to the plaintiffs with the representation that it had been executed by the defendant-respondent. Plaintiffs never consented to the substitution of three for the four obligors and they never intended to be bound apart from defendant-respondent. Under such circumstances there was no novation and defendant-respondent continued to be bound by the extension agreement which he had signed. The prior action did not result in the division of a single cause of action. *(Bank of New York*v. *Blumenthal,*285 N. Y. 598; *Union Trust Co.*v. *Kaplan,*249 App. Div. 280; *Westchester Trust Co.*v. *Estate of Underhill, Inc.,*255 App. Div. 1013.) The mortgage as extended was subject to the moratorium statutes. *(Bank of New York*v. *Blumenthal, supra.)*No opinion.

MacCbate, Smith and Steihbeihk, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23



<PAGE>



                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

         We have issued our report  dated  January 25,  2001,  accompanying  the
consolidated  financial  statements and schedules  incorporated  by reference or
included in the Annual Report of TF Financial  Corporation  and  Subsidiaries on
Form  10-K for the year  ended  December  31,  2000.  We hereby  consent  to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the  Registration  Statements of TF
Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 33-87176, effective
December  7, 1994,  File No.  333-09235,  effective  July 31,  1996 and File No.
333-27085, effective May 14, 1997).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 2001
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In re Guardianship of Sallie B. ) Stephens, an incapacitated person ) (now deceased). ) ________________________________ ) ) DAVID EARL STEPHENS as Personal ) Representative of the E state of Sallie B. ) Stephens, and ANDREW BENNETT ) SPARK, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-1321 ) OWENS LAW GROUP. P.A.; ALLEN ) DELL, P.A.; JABESSA MAJORS ) SMITH, as Successor Guardian of the ) Property of Sallie B. Stephens; and JOE ) ELLEN ROWE, as Former Guardian of the ) Property of Sallie B. Stephens, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________ )

Opinion filed January 20, 2016.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Herbert J. Baumann, Jr., Judge.

Andrew Bennett Spark of Spark Law Chartered, Tampa, pro se, and for Appellant David Earl Stephens as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sallie B. Stephens.- 2 - James S. Eggert of Owens Law Group, P.A., Ruskin, for Appellees Owens Law Group, P.A. and Allen Dell, P.A.

Carl R. Hayes, Tampa, for Appellee Jabessa Majors Smith, as Successor Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. Stephens.

No appearance for Appellee Joe Ellen Rowe, as Former Guardian of the Property of Sallie B. Stephens.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

We affirm the issues raised by the Appellants without comment . However,

Owens Law Group, P.A., and Allen Dell, P.A., concede that the t rial court miscalculated

the interest on the order directing the Guardian to pay them fr om the restricted

depository. The Guardian requested that $20,000 be paid to the se creditor Appellees.

It is unclear from the appellate record how the trial court cal culated the interest, but it

appears that it used the wrong time period, used an incorrect i nterest rate, or made a

computational error in arriving at a total award of $23,693.53. Accordingly, we reverse

the order's award of interest and remand to the trial court wit h directions to recalculate

its interest award. See §§ 55.03, 687.01, Fla. Stat. (2013).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 311 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4120 

[Report No. 113–421] 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the 

termination date. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. HOYER (for himself and Mr. WOLF) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

APRIL 28, 2014 

Additional sponsors: Mr. MORAN, Mr. REICHERT, and Mr. PASCRELL

APRIL 28, 2014 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4120 RH

A BILL 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to 

extend the termination date. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4120 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT 

4 TERMINATION DATE EXTENDED. 

5 Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Mu6 seum Act (Public Law 106–492) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘13 years’’ and inserting ‘‘16 years’’. 

8 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

9 The provisions of this Act shall take effect as if this 

10 Act were enacted on November 8, 2013. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 311 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4120 

[Report No. 113–421] 

A BILL 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum 

Act to extend the termination date. 

APRIL 28, 2014 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS