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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
           from the Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations included in the
           Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is
           qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1000

<S>                               <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<CASH>                                9,500
<SECURITIES>                          4,979
<RECEIVABLES>                         8,073
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     26,251
<PP&E>                                6,615
<DEPRECIATION>                        1,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      156,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 7,707
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                139
<OTHER-SE>                          149,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        156,855
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     24,935
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         9,901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     77,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (60,878)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (60,878)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (60,878)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (4.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (4.68)


</TABLE>
#### W. Gregory BAKER and Vikki Lynn Baiers, v. Chris A. VERRET, Ed Larry Sikes, Greg Baker Enterprises, Inc., Stephanie M. Higginbotham, Darnall, Sikes & Frederick (a CPA Corporation), V.L.B., Inc., CBC International, Inc, Louis B. Viviano, Nawlins Kajun Foods, L.L.C., NKF I Drive Limited Partnership, XYZ Insurance Co., XYZ Insurance Co.

No. 02-990.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 6, 2003.

George Allen Walsh, Alice F. Estill, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants Appellants, Vikki Lynn Baiers, W. Gregory Baker.

Nancy Scott Degan, Roy Clifton Cheat-wood, Kent Andrew Lambert, New Orleans, LA, Reginald J. Ringuet, Lafayette, LA, for Secondary Defendants Appellants, LAF Foods, Inc., BCM L.L.C., NKF IDR Limited Partnership, CPCI Incorporated, VLB, Inc., Louis B. Viviano, CBC International, Inc., Greg Baker Enterprises, Nawlins Kajun Food L.L.C.

Robert A. Kutcher, Patricia Diane Tun-mer, Nicole Sophia Tygier, Metairie, LA, John Bologna Krentel, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants Appellees, William A. Copeland III, Copeland’s of New Orleans, Inc., Alvin C. Copeland, Jr.

*1278Larry Lane Roy, Jennifer A. Wells, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants Appellees, Co-regis Ins. Co., Chris Verret.

William H. Parker, III, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants Appellees, Ed Larry Sikes, Darnell, Sikes, Kolder, Frederick & Rai-ney.

Steven Gerald Durio, Jessica Watts Farmer, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants Appellees, Donald J. Baker, Kirby Pecot, Andrew B. Jameson, Max Luttgeharm, M.L. Godley, M.D.

Robert Louis Broussard, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant Appellee, Donald J. Baker.

Joseph C. Giglio, Jr., Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff Appellee, Walter A. Glod, Jr., M.D.

Court composed of NED E. DOUCET, JR., Chief Judge, GLENN B. GREMILLION, and ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, Judges.

DOUCET, Chief Judge.

For the reasons set forth in *Glod v. Baker,*02-988 (La.App.3 Cir. 8/6/03), 851 So.2d 1255, 2003 WL 21804398, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal shall be paid two-thirds by Baker and Baiers, and one-third by Vivi-ano and his entities not to include the two LLCs.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Gramercy Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Marc Holliday, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|              | /s/ Marc Holliday       |   |
|-------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:             | Marc Holliday           |
| Title:            | Chief Executive Officer |
|              |                    |
| May 9,  2008 |

 

----
#### BRIAN FLIPPIN, by his Guardian ad Litem, MELVIN F. WRIGHT, JR., and SANDRA FLIPPIN v. DR. WILLIAM ERIC JARRELL

No. 7921SC336

(Filed 8 January 1980)

Physicians, Surgeons and Allied Professions § 13— malpractice action —statute of limitations

Plaintiff mother’s suit for medical expenses and loss of services of her son based on defendant physician’s alleged negligent failure to discover that plaintiff’s son had a condition at birth known as phenylketonuria was barred under both the one-year rule and the four-year rule set forth in G.S. l-15(c).

APPEAL by defendant from *Walker (Hal Hammer), Judge.*Order entered 5 January 1979 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 November 1979.

This medical malpractice action was instituted by the minor plaintiff, Brian, and his mother, Sandra Flippin. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently failed to discover that Brian had a condition at birth known as phenylketonuria (“PKU”), which is an inborn or inherited error of metabolism which may result in mental retardation, and that defendant negligently failed to discover and treat Brian’s condition. The defendant filed an answer denying all negligence and pleading the bar of the statute of limitations N.C. Gen. Stat. § 145(c), as to all claims of plaintiff, Sandra Flippin for medical expenses and loss of services of Brian. Defendant later moved for summary judgment based on the aforesaid statute of limitations as applied to the claim of Sandra Flippin. This motion was denied by Judge Walker on 5 January 1977. Defendant now appeals from this order.

This relevant chronology is as follows:

(1) March 11, 1972. Brian was born;

(2) July 8, 1972. The last time the defendant saw, treated, examined, or in any way rendered professional treatment to Brian;

(3) October 14, 1975. Sandra Flippin was aware prior to this time that something was wrong with Brian; on this date, she took Brian to the Child Guidance Clinic for examination;

*519(4)February 1976. The Child Guidance Clinic issued a report stating that Brian was only one-half as mentally alert as he should be;

(5) November 22, 1976. A report on Brian’s condition was issued by Duke University Medical Center, and Brian’s condition was definitely diagnosed as PKU; and

(6) December 19, 1977. This action was commenced.

*White and Crumpler by Fred G. Crumpler, Harrell Powell, Jr., G. Edgar Parker and V. Edward Jennings, Jr., for plaintiff appellees.*

*Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice by H. Grady Barnhill, Jr., and William C. Raper for defendant appellant.*

CLARK, Judge.

The suit by Sandra Flippin for medical expenses and for the loss of services of her son, Brian, is barred by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-15(c), both under the one-year rule and the four-year rule set forth therein. *Stanley v. Brown,*43 N.C. App. 503, 259 S.E. 2d 408 (1979); *Johnson v. Podger,*43 N.C. App. 20, 257 S.E. 2d 684 (1979). The *Johnson*and *Stanley*cases outline in sufficient detail the legislative history of this provision and it is not necessary that we repeat it here.

The order of the trial judge denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

Reversed.

Judges Arnold and Erwin concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Green WARD, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 71-2132.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 10, 1972.

Richard C. Turrone, of Turrone & Komar, San Jose, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., William B. Shubb, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, WRIGHT and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ward was convicted of armed bank robbery and appeals. We affirm.

We find the contention that there was an “atmosphere of fear” throughout the trial not supported by the record. Also, the contention that public trial was lacking when three teenagers were excluded from the building is without merit. And, there was adequate evidence of guilt.

On this record, evidence of a previous arrest does not require reversal.

Any burden the government had as to showing the fairness of the pre-trial line-up was met.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

I, Ashutosh Roy, the chiefexecutive officer of eGain Communications Corporation (the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge, 

(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ending June 30, 2006 the (“Report”), fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to eGainCommunications Corporation and will be retained by eGain Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4999 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the mandate that 

individuals purchase health insurance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2010 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POSEY, and Mr. 

DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reclaiming Individual 

5 Liberty Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE MAN7 DATE. 

8 Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

9 as added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4999 IH

1 Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

2 subsection: 

3 ‘‘(h) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply 

4 with respect to any month beginning after the date of the 

5 enactment of this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
1 The district cle rk did not send

a copy of the notice

to this Court. See Te x. R. App. P. 25. 2(c). We first lear ned of the attempted appeal on January 11, 2002, when the d istrict clerk’s recor d was received. 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-02-00023-CR

Pabl o Rodr

iguez , Appellant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 007101, H ONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

On Dec embe r 4, 2000, Pabl o Rodriguez pl eaded guilty to engagi

ng i n organi zed crim in al acti vi ty. The di strict court deferred f urther pr oce ed

i n gsan d p l ac ed Rod ri gu ez on com m un i ty sup er vision. Rodr igue z fi le d hi s origi

nal notice of appe al

on January

5, 2001. 1 He fi

le d a supp l em en tal noti ce on Feb ruary 14, 200 1. The deadlin

e for perfe cting a

ppeal was Jan uary 3, 2001 . Tex . R. A

pp. P. 26 .2(a)(1 ). No extensi

on of tim e for f il in g notice of appe al

was requested. Te x. R . Ap p. P. 26. 3. The re is no i nd i ca ti on that not ic e of appeal

was properly

ma il ed t o t he dist rict clerk wit hin the tim e prescri bed by rul e 26.2 (a). Tex . R. A

pp. P. 9.2 (b). Unde r t he ci rcu m sta nc es , we l ac k j urisd

i cti on to d i sp ose of t he pu r po r t ed ap pe al in a ny man ne ro t he rt ha n by d ismis sing it for want of j uri sdi cti on. See Slaton2

v. State , 98 1 S. W.2d 208 (T ex. Cr im . App .19 98) ; Olivo v. Sta te , 918 S.W.2d 519 , 522-23 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1996 ).

The appeal

is dis mi ssed.

Lee Yeakel, Justice Befo re Jus t ices Kidd , Y eak el and P at t er so n Di sm i ss ed f or W an t of Ju ri sd i cti on File d: January

31, 2002 Do No t Publis

h
**Exhibit 10.4**

**[AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT]**

This Amendment to **Amended and Restated Employment Agreement** (“Amendment”) is made and entered intoas of the 14th day of March, 2011, by and between XeriumTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”) and David J. Pretty (the “Executive”). 

WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an **Amended and Restated Employment Agreement** effective as of February 11,2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forthherein. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions set forth below and other good and valuableconsideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree that the Employment Agreement shall be amended as follows: 

1. Section 6(b) (Compensation Upon Termination for Disability) is amended by deleting from the first clause of the first sentence thereof the words, “Termination Date,” and inserting inlieu thereof, “date of the notice required by Section 5(b).” 

2. Section 6(b) (Compensation UponTermination for Disability) is amended by adding a new second sentence which shall read: 

“For the purpose of insuringthat the Executive receives the full benefit of the Company’s short-term disability insurance plan, the Termination Date under Section 5(b) (Termination for Disability) shall be that date that corresponds with the date the Executiveexhausts his eligibility for short-term disability insurance benefits under the Company’s then-existing short-term disability insurance plan.” 

3. Section 6(b) (Compensation Upon Termination for Disability) is further amended by adding the following sentence to the end of that Section: 

“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect any rights Executive may have under any long-termdisability plan the Company may have and in which Executive is entitled to participate.” 

4. Except as herein amended,the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the day and year set forthabove. 

 
**XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**
By:
 
/s/ Stephen R. Light
     Name: Stephen R. Light     Title: Chairman, CEO and President**EXECUTIVE:**
By:
 
/s/ David J. Pretty
     Name: David J. Pretty
 
2
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20666]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION

[USARC 05-100]


United States Arctic Research Commission; Meeting

October 4, 2005.
    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 
will hold its 77th meeting in Corvallis, OR on October 25, 26, 2005.The 
Business Sessions, open to the public, will convene at 9 a.m. Tuesday, 
October 25, 2005. The Agenda items include:

    (1) Call to order and approval of the Agenda.
    (2) Approval of the Minutes of the 76th Meeting.
    (3) Reports from Congressional Liaisons.
    (4) Agency Reports.

    The focus of the meetings will be reports and updates on programs 
and research projects affecting the Arctic.
    The Business Session will reconvene at 9 a.m. Wednesday, October 
26, 2005. An Executive Session will follow adjournment of the Business 
Session.
    Any person planning to attend this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.
    Contact Person for More Information: Dr. Garrett W. Brass, 
Executive Director U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 of TDD 
703-306-0090.

Garrett W. Brass,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 05-20666 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
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 New Century Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert K. Cole, Chairman and 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Robert K. ColeRobert K. ColeChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 9, 2005




A signed original 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.



The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Companys Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it 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.
AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB, Plaintiff, v. Robert VOYKSNER, Defendant.

No. COA 18-319

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED.
#### State of Minnesota *vs.*Charles Ehrig & another.

April 20, 1875.

Appeals in Criminal Cases. — A criminal case cannot be removed from a district court to tbe supreme court, by an appeal taken from tbe verdict of a jury therein.

Appeal by defendant from the district court for Hennepin *463county, where he had been convicted of larceny, upon a trial before *Vanderburgh,*J., and a jury.

*Wilson & Lawrence,*for appellant.

*Geo. JP. Wilson,*Attorney General, for the State.

Cornell, J.

The record before us shows that defendant Charles Ehrig, on a separate trial upon an indictment for larceny, was found guilty by the verdict of a jury, which also found the value of the stolen property to be one hundred and five dollars : that what purports to be a statement of the case, comprising the evidence and proceedings therein, was made and allowed by the judge of the trial court; but no motion for a new trial or otherwise has ever been made in that court, nor has any judgment been rendered and entered on the verdict. It does not appear that any question of law, of any character, has ever been suggested, or attempted to be raised in the trial court; but the defendant has taken an appeal to this court from such verdict, on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support it.

The appellate jurisdiction of this court can only be exercised in the maimer prescribed by law, and in accordance with its recognized rules of practice and procedure. Mere acquiescence and consent of parties will not confer upon it jurisdiction or authority to take cognizance of a case not properly and legally before it; and whenever such a case is apparent upon the face of the record, it is incumbent upon the court to notice it.

A criminal case can be removed to this court, by appeal, only after the decision of a motion denying a new trial, or after a judgment. § 1, ch. 117, Gen. Stat., as amended by ch. 76, Laws 1870. There is no provision of statute, nor ride of practice, allowing an appeal to be taken from a verdict. Hence the appeal in this case must be dismissed.
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 AKI Holding Corp. on Form 10-K for
the period  ending  June 30,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  we, William J. Fox and Kenneth A.
Budde, the Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer,  respectively,
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  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of AKI
Holding Corp.


/s/ William J. Fox
-------------------------
William J. Fox
Chief Executive Officer
September 24, 2003


/s/ Kenneth A Budde
-------------------------
Kenneth A. Budde
Chief Financial Officer
September 24, 2003


A signed  original 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.