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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      12,211,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,092,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,195,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,498,903
<PP&E>                                      23,580,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,079,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,630,013
<BONDS>                                     22,297,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,151,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,079,278
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,270,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,672,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,773,798
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,963,054
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,860,543
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,860,543
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12816-12817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5640]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application To Use the Revenues From 
a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Albany County Airport, Albany, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Correction to notice of intent to rule on application to use 
the revenues from a passenger facility charge (PFC) at 
[[Page 12817]] Albany County Airport, Albany, New York.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This correction incorporates information from the public 
agency's application which were omitted from the previously published 
notice.
    In notice document 95-4211 beginning on Page 9717 in the issue of 
Tuesday, February 21, 1995, on the second column, the last paragraph 
should read as follows:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public 
comment on the application to use the revenues from a PFC at Albany 
County Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity 
Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
    On December 22, 1994, the FAA determined that the application to 
use the revenues from a PFC submitted by the County of Albany was 
substantially complete within the requirements of Section 158.25 of 
Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole 
or in part, no later than March 22, 1995.
    The following is a brief overview of the application.
    Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.
    Proposed charge effective date: March 1, 1994.
    Proposed charge expiration date: April 1, 2005.
    Total estimated PFC revenue: $40,726,364.
    Brief description of proposed projects:

--Terminal Building Renovation
--Runway and Taxiway Improvements
--Flood Management Improvements
--Air Traffic Control Tower
--Environmental Remediation
--New Interior Roadways
--Airport Studies
--Airport Equipment

    Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has 
requested not be required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi/Commercial 
Operators (ATCO) filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA 
Regional Airports office located at Fitzgerald Federal Building, John 
F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the 
Albany County Airport.

    Issued in Jamaica, New York on February 28, 1995.
Anthony P. Spera,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 95-5640 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,767,872
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,952,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,037
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,747,342
<PP&E>                                         963,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                 380,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,358,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,752,077
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       129,081
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,477,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,358,504
<SALES>                                        297,809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,575,160
<CGS>                                          264,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,354,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               269,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               104,831
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,725,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                   716,222
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,008,946
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,008,946
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
<PAGE> 1

EXHIBIT 23.01


                 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of
Micro  Focus  Group Plc of our  reports  dated May 1, 1998 with  respect  to the
consolidated  financial  statements  of Micro Focus Group Plc for the year ended
January  31,  1998  included  in its 1998  Annual  Report  to  Shareholders  and
furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  pursuant to a Report of
Foreign Issuer (Form 6-K).


Our audits also included the financial  statement schedules of Micro Focus Group
Plc  listed  in  Item  19(a).  These  schedules  are the  responsibility  of the
Company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion,  based on our audits, the financial  statement schedules
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole,  present fairly in all material  respects the  information set
forth therein.




/s/ Ernst & Young

Ernst & Young
May 27, 1998
Reading, England
EXHIBIT 31.2

Section 302 Certification

I, William L. Hodges, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc.;
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                                  
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: October 25, 2013 |  |  |  |  |  |                                                  
|                       |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ William L. Hodges                            
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | William L. Hodges                                
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | and Chief Financial Officer                      
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Industrial Enterprises
      of
      America, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
      such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s annual report on Form 10-QSB for
      the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Form 10-QSB”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in the Form
      10-QSB.





Dated:  December
      15. 2005





/s/ John Mazzuto


**John
      Mazzuto**


Chief
      Executive Officer





The
      foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate
      disclosure document.
#### LAURA COWANS v. NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITALS, Inc.

(Filed 10 April, 1929.)

Hospitals B l) — Charitable hospital is liable Jtoi‘ negligent injury to employees.

A charitable hospital not operated for gain' but only for benevolent purposes is liable in damages for a negligent injury inflicted by it on an employee as distinguished from a patient therein. *Green v.*Biggs, 167 N. C., 417; *Soke v. Glemi,*167 N. O., 594, cited and distinguished.

Appeal bj defendant from *Moore, J.,*at February Term, 1929, of Forsyth.

Civil action by plaintiff, servant or employee of defendant, to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury, tried in the Forsyth County Court on the usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal to- the Superior Court, all exceptions and assignments of error were overruled and the judgment of the county court affirmed.

From the judgment of the Superior Court, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Richmond Rucker and John J. Ingle for plaintiff.*

*A. Wayland Cooke and Fred S. Hutchins for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The chief question presented by the appeal is whether a charitable hospital, operated not for gain, but for benevolent purposes, can be held liable in damages for the negligent injury to a servant or employee. *We*think so. 5 R. C. L., 378; *McInerny v. St. Lake’s Hosp.*Asso. (1913) (Minn.), 46 L. R. A. (N. S.), 548; *Bruce v. Central M. E. Church*(1907), 10 L. R. A. (N. S.), 74, 11 Ann. Cas., 150 (Mich.); *Hewett v. Women’s Hosp. Aid Asso.*(1906), 7 L. R. A. (N. S.), 496, 64 Atl., 190 (N. H.); *Hordern v. Salvation Army*(1910), 32 L. R. A. (N. S.), 62, 93 N. E., 626.

Plaintiff was a servant or employee of the defendant, and not a beneficiary of its charity. This distinguishes the case from *Green v.*
      *42
      *Biggs,*167 N. C., 417, 83 S. E., 553, and *Hoke v. Glenn,*167 N. C., 594, 83 S. E., 807, where it was held that an eleemosynary institution or a charitable hospital was not liable to a patient for the *tort*of its servants or agents, when due care was exercised in the selection or retention of said servants or agents, and no duty was undertaken requiring the exercise of special art or skill. See, also, *Johnson v. Hospital,*196 N. C., 610.

Affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALJIT KUMAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73639

Agency No. A096-178-285

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 11, 2013** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Baljit Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

FEB 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-73639

denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th

Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kumar’s motion to reopen

as untimely because the motion was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s final

administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kumar failed to demonstrate

changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time

limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996

(requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that

conditions in country of nationality had changed). Further, we reject Kumar’s

contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its decision. Finally, we

decline to consider any challenge Kumar raises to the agency’s adverse credibility

determination because this court already decided that issue in Kumar v. Holder,

325 Fed. Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2009). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00407-CV

Jacek DZIERWA,

Appellant

v.

Veronica CERDA,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-18975

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for new trial. The motion to dismiss filed by Veronica 

Cerda is DENIED.

We ORDER that Jacek Dzierwa recover his costs of this appeal from Veronica Cerda.

SIGNED August 6, 2014.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
#### STATE v. A. D. OWNBEY, JR.

(Filed 27 November, 1957)

Appeal by defendant from *Olive,*/., February, 1957 Criminal Term, Guilford Superior Court (Greensboro Division).

Criminal prosecution upon an indictment charging that on November 25, 1956, the defendant did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature, etc. To the charge the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. A number of witnesses testified for the State and others testified for the defendant; among the latter, six of his neighbors gave evidence of the defendant’s good character. The defendant did not testify.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. From a judgment that the defendant be confined in the State’s prison for not less than 20 nor more than 50 years, he appealed.

*H. L. Koontz, C. L. Shaping for defendant appellant.*

*George B. Patton, Attorney General, Harry W. McGalliard, Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

Per Curiam :

Counsel have been diligent in behalf of the defendant in this Court and the record shows they were equally so in the Superior Court. The charge is serious. The punishment is afflictive. However, we find nothing in the record to justify a new trial. For that reason no useful purpose can be served by a discussion of the evidence, except to say that if it is true (and the jury so found), it was sufficient to warrant conviction and to support the judgment.

No error.
Exhibit
10.7


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO WARRANT


 


Amendment
No. 1 to that certain warrant dated August 4, 2022 dated as of November 16, 2022 (the “Amendment”), between Scripps
Safe, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, (the “Company”), and Greentree Financial Group, Inc., (“Greentree”,
and together with the Company, the “Parties”, and each, a “Party”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties have entered into a Loan Agreement dated as of August 4, 2022, pursuant to which Greentree has agreed to loan the Company
up to $250,000 (the “Existing Agreement”) and desire to amend the warrant dated August 4, 2022 to purchase up to 200,000
shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.00 per share (the “Existing Warrant”) issued in connection
with the Existing Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1. Definitions.
Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment have the respective meanings assigned to them in the Existing
Warrant.


 


2. Amendments
to the Existing Warrant. The Existing Warrant is hereby amended as follows:


 


(a)
The pre-amble to the Existing Warrant shall be hereby amended to provide that the Warrants shall not be exercisable until the
Company’s IPO or some other event that results in the Company’s common stock becoming publicly traded as opposed to the
Warrant being exercisable into common stock immediately upon issuance.


 


3.
Except as expressly set forth herein, the Existing Agreement and Existing Warrant are unmodified and remain in full force and effect
and the execution of this Amendment does not and shall not constitute an amendment of any other rights to which the parties are
entitled pursuant to the Existing Agreement or Existing Warrant


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE FOLLOWS]


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment on the date first written above.


 


	 	SCRIPPS SAFE, INC.
	 	 
	 	By	 /s/
                                            Jacqueline Anz 

	 	Name:	Jacqueline Anz
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	GREENTREE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
	 	 
	 	By	 /s/
    Robert Chris Cottone 
	 	Name:	Robert Chris Cottone
	 	Title:	Vice President


 




    	2
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24
 
                         PARAGON HEALTH NETWORK, INC.

                                  DIRECTORS'
                              POWERS OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT each of the undersigned directors of
Paragon Health Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does 
hereby make, constitute and appoint Charles B. Carden, Susan Thomas Whittle,
and Stefano M. Miele, or any of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and
agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his
name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to execute, deliver and file
an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1997 for
the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with any and
all amendments thereto, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in
connection therewith or supplemental thereto, hereby granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing as said attorneys and agents may deem necessary or
advisable to carry out fully the intents and purposes of the foregoing as the
undersigned might or could do personally or in the capacity or capacities as
aforesaid, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts and things which each of
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or his or her substitute or substitutes, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of 
Attorney effective December 29, 1997.

/s/ Keith B. Pitts                           /s/ Baltej S. Maini 
-------------------------                    --------------------------------   
Keith B. Pitts                               Baltej S. Maini, M.D.

/s/ Donald C. Beaver                         /s/ Williams G. Petty
-------------------------                    --------------------------------
Donald C. Beaver                             Williams G. Petty, Jr.

/s/ Laurence M. Berg                         /s/ Robert L. Rosen 
-------------------------                    --------------------------------
Laurence M. Berg                             Robert L. Rosen 

/s/ Gene E. Burleson
-------------------------
Gene E. Burleson

/s/ Peter P. Copses 
-------------------------
Peter P. Copses  

/s/ Jay M. Gellert
-------------------------
Jay M. Gellert

/s/ Joel S. Kanter
-------------------------
Joel S. Kanter

/s/ John H. Kissick
-------------------------
John H. Kissick
Order filed March 1, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00971-CR

____________

MOHAMMED RIZWAN RAHMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-CCR-187232A

ORDER

On October 24, 2017, we ordered the Fort Bend County Clerk to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record by January 16, 2018. The record was not filed, so we 

issued a second order on January 30, 2018, ordering the clerk to file the record by 

February 9, 2018. The record has still not been filed.

We order the Fort Bend County Clerk to file the past-due supplemental record 

by March 12, 2018, containing the following two documents:
2

1. Order on Application for Pre-Trial Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed 

October 23, 2017; and

2. Notice of appeal, filed December 5, 2017

If any omitted item is not part of the case file, the county clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

The supplemental clerk’s record is due by March 12, 2018.

PER CURIAM