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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000742070
<NAME> WESTBANK CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           12141
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            1195
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 10995
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      14718
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           20986
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             20899
<LOANS>                                         215553
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  281640
<DEPOSITS>                                      253577
<SHORT-TERM>                                      7994
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                988
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         19081
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  281640
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  13222
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1792
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   181
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 15195
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                6268
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6460
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             8735
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      668
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 112
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   6870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2841
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2841
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1641
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.65
<LOANS-NON>                                       2671
<LOANS-PAST>                                        39
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2710
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3707
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     1989
<RECOVERIES>                                       349
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2735
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2735
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Major Automotive Companies, Inc.
Long Island City, New York


      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting a part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 filed on January
18, 2000 and May 26, 2000 of our report dated April 12, 2002 relating to the
financial statements of The Major Automotive Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries
appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001.

      We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectus.

                                        /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                        ---------------------------

New York, New York
April 12, 2002
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

BETWEEN:

            WAYNE ALAN TAYLOR

            ("Taylor")

AND:

            GESTURE RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGIES (GRT)
            INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

            ("GRT")

WHEREAS:

A. Taylor and DSI Datotech Systems, Inc. ("Datotech") entered into an Agreement
on the 28th day of February, 2000 (the "Agreement") a copy of which is attached
hereto as Schedule "A";

B. Pursuant to clause 6 of the Agreement, Taylor has been granted an option (the
"Option") to sell or license certain technology owned by Datotech to a
partnership or corporation on condition that such partnership or corporation
pays to Datotech the sum of U.S.$8,000,000 and issues to Datotech a 20%
undiluted equity interest in such partnership or corporation.

NOW THEREFOR THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that, in consideration for the payment by
GRT to Taylor of the sum of U.S.$10, Taylor hereby irrevocably assigns to GRT
all of Taylor's right, title and interest in and to the Option.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF parties have executed this Agreement effective the date first
above written.


/s/ Wayne Alan Taylor
---------------------
  WAYNE ALAN TAYLOR

<PAGE>   2

GESTURE RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGIES
(GRT) INTERNATIONAL LIMITED


Per: /s/ Ian Phillips
     --------------------
     Authorized Signatory

Notice of the above Assignment is hereby acknowledged effective the 28 day of
July 2000.

DSI DATOTECH SYSTEMS INC.


Per: /s/ Edward C. Pardiak
     ---------------------
     Authorized Signatory
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 37 1 6

_____________________________
J USTIN T AVARSE B ARGE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. August 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , R OWE , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tall ahassee
, for Appellee.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Department of the Army Depot, :

Tobyhanna Army Depot, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent : No. 1715 C.D. 2014

O R D E R

NOW, September 28, 2015, upon consideration of petitioner’s 

application for reargument en banc, the application is denied. 

_____________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, 

President Judge
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 50509 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Darnell O'Shea McCoy,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:18

- CR

- 257

- 1 2

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Higginson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Darnell O’Shea McCoy has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). McCoy has filed a response. Th e record is not sufficiently

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 1, 2020
Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 19-50509 Document: 00515547727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2020No. 19

- 50509

2 developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of McCoy ’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as McCoy ’s response. We concur with

co unsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5 TH**  **C IR** 

**. R** 

. 42.2.
The record reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. Although the judgment refers to the offense of conviction as conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute a controlled substance , the record indicates that McCoy pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance

. Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36. Case: 19-50509 Document: 00515547727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2020
AITOECNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

The Honorable Sam Kelley 

Consumer Credit Commissioner 

P. 0. Box 2107 

Austin, Texas 78767 

Opinion No. H- 709 

Re: Whether an automobile 

insurance policy may be financed 

in a motor vehicle installment 

sales contract. 

Dear Commissioner Kelley: 

You have requested our opinion concerning whether the premium for a 

mechanical breakdown policy may be financed as part of an installment sales 

contract under article 5069-7. 06(Z), V. T. C. S. A mechanical breakdown policy 

provides reimbursement for repairs to automobiles necessitated by the failure 

of certain mechanical parts. 

Article 5069-7. 06(2) provides: 

A seller or holder may; in addition, request or 

require a buyer to insure tangible personal property 

involved in such a contract, made under authority of 

this Chapter, and include the cost of such insurance 

as a separate charge in such contract. Such insurance 

and the premiums or charges therefrom shall bear a 

reasonable relationship to the amount, term and conditions of the contract, the existing hazards or risk of 

loss, damage or destruction, and shall not provide for 

unusual or exceptional risks or coverages which are 

not ordinarily included in policies issued to the general 

public. 

Thus a seller may request or require insurance for tangible personal 

property involved in a sales contract, but such insurance may “not provide 

for unusual or exceptional risks or coverages which are not ordinarily included 

in policies issued to the general public, ” and any such insurance must relate to 

the sales contract. In addition, if an insurance policy may be included in a sales 

contract under article 5069-7.06(2), it may be required by the seller. 

p. 3058 
The Honorable Sam Kelley - page two (H-709) 

Damage from mechanical breakdowns is expressly excluded from the 

coverage of a general automobile insurance policy. See Automobile Series No. 

130, October 20, 1941, Board of Insurance Commissioners. We have been informed that few, if any, mechanical breakdown policies have been written in Texas. 

Assuming this to be true, we believe you would ‘be required to find such protection 

presently would constitute II[ coverage] not ordinarily included in policies issued to 

the general public, ” and therefore may not be included in an installment sales contract. Of course a purchaser is free to obtain mechanical breakdown insurance 

independently of the sales contract. 

SUMMARY 

If mechanical breakdown insurance is 

coverage not ordinarily included in policies 

issued to the general public, such insurance 

may not be required or financed in an automobile installment sales contract under 

article 5069-7. 06(2),V. T. C. S. 

Xery truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

jad: 

p* 3059
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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.







/s/ BROOKS SHERMAN

Brooks Sherman

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Principal Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Integrated Security Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Integrated Security Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and 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, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not 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.
#### KEFFLER, Respondent, *v.*WILDS, Appellant.

(No. 3,482.)

(Submitted February 10, 1915.

Decided March 6, 1915.)

[146 Pac. 1105.]

*Pleadings*— Complaint — *Ambiguity*— *Failure to Demur*—■ *Waiver.*

1. Failure to demur to a complaint for ambiguity operates as a waiver of such defect, under section 6539, Revised Codes.

*Appeal from District Court, Custer County; Sydney Banner, Judge.*

Action by Lambert Keffler against T. R. Wilds. From an order refusing to dissolve an attachment, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Cause submitted on briefs of counsel.

*Messrs. Tisor & McKinnon*and *Messrs. Loud, Collins, Brown, Campbell & Wood,*for Appellant.

*Mr. Geo. W. Farr*and *Mr. H. E. Herrick,*for Respondent.

MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to dissolve an attachment issued in the case of *Lambert Keffler*v. *T. R. Wilds, ante,*p. 381, 146 Pac. 1103. The contention of counsel for appellant is that the amended complaint does not state a ca^se of action, and therefore will not sustain an attachment.

Our decision in the principal case is decisive of this. It cannot be said from the complaint itself that it fails to state a [1] cause of action. The complaint is very ambiguous and, if a special demurrer had been interposed, it would have been sustained without doubt; but the failure of counsel for defendant *388to invoke that remedy operated as a waiver of such defect, (Rev. Codes, sec. 6539.)

The order is affirmed.

*•Affirmed.*

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly concurs.

Mr. Justice Sanner, being disqualified, did not hear the argument and takes no part in the foregoing decision.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 215 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 215

     To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to increase the 
allotments for territories under the State Children's Health Insurance 
                                Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

  Mr. Moynihan (for himself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to increase the 
allotments for territories under the State Children's Health Insurance 
                                Program.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED ALLOTMENTS FOR TERRITORIES UNDER THE STATE 
              CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    Section 2104(c)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1397dd(c)(4)(B)), as added by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277), is amended 
by inserting ``, $34,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001, 
$25,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004, $32,400,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and $40,000,000 for fiscal year 
2007'' before the period.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 21, 2011 

d1114 

Order 

 

November 21, 2011 

143620 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143620 

 COA: 304427 

Oakland CC: 2009-229057-FH 

JONATHAN JAY MICHALCZAK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 10, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2241

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust wages and wagerelated costs for certain items and services furnished in geographically

reclassified hospitals.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 9, 2000

Mr. CRAPO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust

wages and wage-related costs for certain items and services furnished in geographically reclassified hospitals.

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 ‘‘Medicare Wage-Index

5 Reclassification Act of 2000’’.
2

•S 2241 IS

1 SEC. 2. HOSPITAL GEOGRAPHIC RECLASSIFICATION FOR

2 LABOR COSTS FOR ALL ITEMS AND SERVICES

3 REIMBURSED UNDER PROSPECTIVE PAY4 MENT SYSTEMS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(d)(10) of the Social

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(10)) is amended by

7 adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

8 ‘‘(G) APPLICATION OF HOSPITAL GEOGRAPHIC RE9 CLASSIFICATION FOR INPATIENT SERVICES TO ALL HOS10 PITAL-FURNISHED ITEMS AND SERVICES REIMBURSED

11 UNDER PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM.—

12 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a hospital

13 with an application approved by the Medicare Geo14 graphic Classification Review Board under subpara15 graph (C)(i)(II) to change the hospital’s geographic

16 classification for a fiscal year for purposes of the

17 factor used to adjust the DRG prospective payment

18 rate for area differences in hospital wage levels that

19 applies to such hospital under paragraph (3)(E), the

20 change in the hospital’s geographic classification for

21 such purposes shall apply for purposes of adjust22 ments to payments for variations in costs which are

23 attributable to wages and wage-related costs for all

24 PPS-reimbursed items and services.

25 ‘‘(ii) PPS-REIMBURSED ITEMS AND SERVICES

26 DEFINED.—For purposes of clause (i), the term
3

•S 2241 IS

1 ‘PPS-reimbursed items and services’ means, for cost

2 reporting periods beginning during the fiscal year

3 for which such change has been approved, items and

4 services furnished by the hospital, or by an entity or

5 department of the hospital which is provider-based

6 (as determined by the Secretary), for which

7 payments—

8 ‘‘(I) are made under the prospective pay9 ment system for hospital outpatient department

10 services under section 1833(t); and

11 ‘‘(II) are adjusted for variations in costs

12 which are attributable to wages and wage-re13 lated costs.’’.

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

15 subsection (a) shall apply to items and services furnished

16 on or after October 1, 2001.

Æ
No. 1,630.

#### STATE ex rel. BOSTON & MONTANA CONSOL. C. & S. MINING CO., Relator, *v.*DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT and WILLIAM CLANCY, Judge Thereof, Respondents.

*Original*— C *ertiorari.*

Decided June 19, 1903.

*Messrs. Forbis*& *Fvans,*for Relator.

*Mr. J. M.*Denny, and *Messrs.*Cullen, *Day &*Cullen, for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

Upon motion of counsel for the relator this application for a writ of review is dismissed without costs, in accordance with the stipulation on file.
#### Tennessee Central R. R. Co. v. Reeves’ Admr.

(Decided May 3, 1911.)

Appeal from Christian Circuit Court.

Though the 'bill of exceptions is ’delayed, by appellee, the appeal will be dismissed with damages, if the record is not filed in ■time, unless the time is extended.

JAMES >0. COOK and HESTER .& AliDENiSWOlRTEC for appellant.

DOfWlER & RUSSEiLI, for appellee.

Opinion op the Coitet by

Chiep Justice Hobsoh

Motion sustained.

' It is incumbent on appellant to have the time for filing the' record extended when the bill of exceptions was not filed, although it was delayed by appellee. The time having expired and the record not having been filed, the appeal, nnder the statutes, must be dismissed with damages.

Motion sustained.
Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report of Global Med Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (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.
 Dated:  March 16, 2010
    /s/ Darren P. CraigDarren P. CraigActing Chief Financial Officer
No. 1,911.

#### MIRACLE, Respondent, *v.*PALMER et al., Appellants.

*Appeal from District Court, Leiuis and Clarke Countyj Henry C. Smith, Judge.*

Decided November 20, 1903.

Per Curiam.

It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the court below made and entered on the 2,7th day of No*569vember, A. D. 1901, be and the same is hereby reversed and the cause remanded in accordance with the stipulation on file.

*Messrs. Toole & Bach,*for Appellants.

*Messrs. Nolan & Loeb,*for Respondent.