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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 OF
MAHASKA INVESTMENT COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,187
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,873
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,320
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            22,328
<LOANS>                                        138,550
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,740)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,790
<DEPOSITS>                                     205,151
<SHORT-TERM>                                    13,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,060
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,423
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 256,790
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,195
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  708
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,152
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,055
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,339
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,716
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      146
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,921
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,246
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,246
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.32
<LOANS-NON>                                        719
<LOANS-PAST>                                       309
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   384
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               (1,619)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       30
<RECOVERIES>                                       (5)
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              (1,740)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           (1,740)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        (1,740)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 17, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41472 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MIKHAEL CHARLES DORISE, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:02-CR-10-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mikhael Charles Dorise was charged with bank robbery, use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Dorise waived his right to counsel and proceeded to trial pro se. A jury convicted Dorise on all three counts. Dorise was sentenced to 411 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, $199 in restitution, and a $300 special assessment. Represented by appointed counsel, Dorise now appeals.No. 04-41472 -2- Dorise’s sole issue on appeal is whether he was competent to waive his right to counsel. At the hearing on Dorise’s motion for self-representation, Dorise responded appropriately and coherently to all of the magistrate judge’s questions. The record reflects that Dorise had a good understanding of the proceedings against him. The magistrate judge did not err in finding that Dorise knowingly and willingly waived his right to counsel. See Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960); Dunn v. Johnson , 162 F.3d 302, 307-08 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
| **Quarterly Financial Data Quarterly Financial Data (Narrative) (Details) (USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified** | 3 Months Ended                                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
||
| **Quarterly Financial Data [Abstract]**                                                                                    |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Unusual or infrequent item, net (gain) loss, net of tax                                                                    | $ 65stj_Unusualorinfrequentitemnetgainlossnetoftax | $ 39stj_Unusualorinfrequentitemnetgainlossnetoftax | $ 21stj_Unusualorinfrequentitemnetgainlossnetoftax | $ 25stj_Unusualorinfrequentitemnetgainlossnetoftax | $ 171stj_Unusualorinfrequentitemnetgainlossnetoftax | $ 160stj_Unusualorinfrequentitemnetgainlossnetoftax | $ 40stj_Unusualorinfrequentitemnetgainlossnetoftax |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Unusual or infrequent item, net (gain) loss, net of tax, including special charges, acquisition-related costs and income tax-related charges and/or benefits.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**stj_Unusualorinfrequentitemnetgainlossnetoftax**Namespace Prefix:**stj_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_QuarterlyFinancialDataAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0386. SAMUEL ANKRAH v. DOREEN LAWRENCE.

Samuel Ankrah filed a petition for legitimation of the parties’ two minor

children, who attend boarding school in Ghana. Doreen Lawrence filed a counterclaim

for custody. After a temporary hearing, the trial court awarded primary physical

custody to Lawrence. Thereafter, Ankrah filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial

court appointed a guardian ad litem. At a hearing in October 2018, the trial court orally

denied Ankrah’s motion for reconsideration. After the hearing, Ankrah dismissed his

petition. He also filed a motion to vacate the court’s order appointing a guardian ad

litem. In January 2019, Lawrence filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to OCGA

§ 9-15-14 (a) regarding the reconsideration motion and the motion to vacate the order.

The trial court granted the motion and ordered Ankrah’s counsel to pay $2,500 in

attorney fees. Ankrah then filed this application for discretionary appeal. Lawrence

has filed a motion to dismiss the application and for Rule 7(e) (2) sanctions.

Generally, a party must follow the discretionary appeal procedures to appeal the

award of OCGA § 9-15-14 attorney fees. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10). Here,

although Ankrah dismissed his petition, Lawrence’s counterclaim remains pending

below. Because no final judgment has been entered, the order Ankrah seeks to appeal

is interlocutory. See Eidson v. Croutch, 337 Ga. App. 542, 544 (788 SE2d 129)

(2016). Consequently, in order to obtain appellate review, Ankrah was required to

follow the interlocutory appeal procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), including

obtaining a certificate of immediate review. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833

(471 SE2d 213) (1996); see also Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga.

April 03, 2019
587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991). Although Ankrah filed an application for

discretionary appeal, as described in OCGA § 5-6-35, compliance with that procedure

does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from

complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey, 266

Ga. at 833. Ankrah’s failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives

this Court of jurisdiction of this application. Accordingly, Lawrence’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED, and this application is hereby DISMISSED. Lawrence’s

request for a frivolous application penalty pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 7 (e) (2)

is DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certif y that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/03/2019
Table of Contents

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350, 
As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to such officers knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2005 of Net Serviços de Comunicação S.A. (the Company) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof 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 such annual report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |        |                                
| | ------ | -------------------------------
| |        | /s/ Francisco Tosta Valim Filho
| |        |                                
| | Name:  | Francisco Tosta Valim Filho    
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer        
| | Date:  | May 31, 2006                   

---

#####
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.22


            AMENDMENT TO THE NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN
                   OF AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION (1993)
                   ------------------------------------------


     THIS AMENDMENT, made by the Board of Directors of American Freightways
corporation (the "Company") is effective as of the date indicated below.

                               W-I-T-N-E-S-S-E-T-H

     WHEREAS, the Company sponsors the 1993 Non-Employee Director Stock Option
Plan of American Freightways Corporation (the "Plan"); and

     WHEREAS, paragraph 5 of Section 1 of the Plan authorizes the Board of
Directors of the Company to amend the Plan from time to time; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it is in
the best interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries and the
Company's shareholders to amend Section 3 of the Plan to provide for the
treatment of options upon the occurrence of certain events.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1. Effective as of the date set forth below, the second paragraph of Section 3
(Recapitalizations and Reorganizations) shall be amended by adding at the end
thereof the following sentence:

          In the event of a merger or consolidation of the Company in which the
     Company does not survive and the agreement of merger or consolidation
     provides that outstanding options shall not terminate (or shall be
     substituted), unless otherwise provided in the agreement of merger or
     consolidation, (i) this Plan shall continue and be effective for purposes
     of administering options previously granted and remaining outstanding (or
     any substituted options), (ii) the successor company (or its parent) to
     such merger or consolidation shall assume the liabilities hereunder and
     thereunder, and (iii) notwithstanding paragraph 3E of Section 2, if an
     optionee resigns or is terminated as director of the Company as a result of
     or arising from such merger or consolidation of the Company, options
     granted prior to such resignation or termination (or any substituted
     options) shall continue to vest and shall remain exercisable for such time
     and in such manner as if the director had not resigned or been terminated,
     so long as the director agrees to be available to consult on matters
     affecting the Company or its successor for the remainder of the vesting
     period with respect to the options.

This amendment is executed and effective as of this 12th day of November, 2000.
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Bedrock  Energy,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, W.
Edwards Nichols,  President of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ W. Edwards Nichols
                                         --------------------------------
                                         W. Edwards Nichols, President
Date: August 10, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO





18
U.S.C. 1350,





AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Wi-Max Communications, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank R. Ventura,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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





Date:
December 7, 2010





By:
              /s/ Frank R. VenturaFrank
      R. VenturaChief
      Financial Officer
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 Cemtrex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Saagar Govil, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (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/Saagar Govil        
| | -----------------------
| | Saagar Govil           
| | Chief Executive Officer



Dated: February 26, 2015
210 P.2d 392

#### STATE v. BELL.

No. 7544.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Oct. 3, 1949.

W. A. Johnston and E. G. Elliott, of Boise, for appellant.

Robert E. Smylie, Attorney General, Don J. McClenahan, J. N. I.eggat, J. R. Smead, and Donald A. Purdy, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

*486HOLDEN, Chief Justice.

Clif Bell was charged with and convicted of the crime of issuing a check without funds, and sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary, and he appeals.

The record discloses that on Monday night, March 28, 1949, between 10:00 and 12 o’clock, Bell drew a check on the First Security Bank of Idaho for the sum of $8; that Bell had no credit with that bank and at the time of the issuance of the check had no funds on deposit in the bank, and never had had.

In connection with the issuance of the check it appears the state proved Bell told the person (Alex Nicolona, bar tender at the Pastime Club in Boise to whom Bell delivered the check), in substance, that he, Bell, would come in the next morning and pick it up; that Nicolona replied: “I’ll tell Mr. Odiaga to hold onto it through the morning and not put it in until afternoon”. That at the moment. Nicolona was not disposed to cash the check; that he changed his mind, however, and cashed the check because Bell told him he would come in in the morning; that if he (Bell) didn’t get in in the morning to pick the check up, to let it go through the bank in the afternoon; that if the check was presented the next morning it would be contrary to the agreement with Nicolona.

It also appears that around 2 o’clock in the morning, following the issuance of the check, and before it was known whether Bell had any funds in the bank or not, Boise detectives arrested Bell and took him to the police station, and that Bell was in jail throughout the next day (Tuesday).

The state proved, as above shown, and it is, of course, bound by that proof, that credit was actually extended in the transaction involving the issuance and cashing of the $8 check; that such credit was extended, by agreement, from the date of the giving of the check until the afternoon of the next day. It could make no difference, as a matter of law, whether a credit extension agreement involving the payment pf a check, covers a day, or a month, or a year, it would still, and nevertheless, be, and remain, a credit extension transaction. Such a transaction, of course, is not within the statute under which appellant was prosecuted and convicted, in that the element of fraudulent intent was lacking. State v. Ellis, 67 Ariz. 7, 189 P.2d 717, 720.

It follows the iudgment must be, and it is, hereby reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action.

GIVENS, PORTER, TAYLOR' and KEETON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF RENAISSANCE LEARNING, INC.
                              (As of March 1, 2004)

<Table>
<Caption>
Name                                                        Jurisdiction of Organization
--------------------------------------------------          ----------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>
Renaissance Learning Australia Proprietary Limited          Australia
Advantage Learning Systems India Private Limited            India
Renaissance Learning of Canada Co.                          Nova Scotia, Canada
Renaissance Learning UK Limited                             United Kingdom
Athena Holdings LLC                                         Wisconsin
Generation21 Learning Systems, LLC                          Wisconsin
Renaissance Corporate Services, Inc.                        Washington
RL Investments, Inc.                                        Nevada
RL Asset Management, Inc.                                   Nevada
</Table>
Order entered May 15, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00565
- CV
JW GST EXEMPT TRUST AND JAMES Y. WYNNE, Appellant s V. WRENO S. WYNNE , WILLIAM B. WYNNE, ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 86th District Cour t Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 84117
- 86 

### O RDER By notice filed May 13, 201 5 , appellee American Liberty Oil Company, LP has informed the Court it has filed for bankruptcy. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.2, further action in this cause is automatically suspended. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.2. Accordingly, for administrative purposes, this cause is ABATED and treated as a closed case. It may be reinstated on motion by any party showing, in accordance with rule of appellate proc edure 8.3, that the appeal is permitted by federal law or the bankruptcy court. See id. 8.3.

.
/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 11

                           MAHASKA INVESTMENT COMPANY
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                                      March 31,
                                                                                ----------------------
                                                                                    2002        2001
                                                                                ----------  ----------
<S>                                                                             <C>         <C>
Earnings per Share Information:
-------------------------------------

Weighted average number of shares
   outstanding during the year ..................................                3,871,038   3,953,471

Weighted average number of shares
   outstanding during the year
   including all dilutive potential shares ......................                3,937,121   3,980,934

Net earnings ....................................................               $1,417,323  $  992,137

Earnings per share - basic ......................................               $     0.37  $     0.25

Earnings per share - diluted ....................................               $     0.36  $     0.25
</TABLE>