alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF KME TELECOM  HOLDINGS,  INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999,  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               Jan-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                       21,207,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                25,905,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (2,095,000)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             83,218,000
<PP&E>                                      454,055,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (27,273,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              697,496,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       207,341,000
<BONDS>                                     567,161,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       207,036,000
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (284,948,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                697,496,000
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             42,284,000
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                75,209,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             74,150,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           47,848,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (152,185,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (152,185,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                               (152,185,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (228.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (228.20)



</TABLE>
#### MONON STONE COMPANY v. DIXSON HOLDING CORPORATION.

(Filed 15 April, 1931.)

Appeal by defendant from *Stack, J.,*at September Term, 1930, of Foesyti-i.

The plaintiff furnished the defendant stone which was used in the construction of a building on a lot owned by the defendant in the city of 'Winston-Salem. Of the total cost, the plaintiff received $3,506.48, the balance claimed being $2,238.52.

The. following verdict was returned:

1. Was the stone for the Brown-Rogers-Dixson Building on Trade Street furnished by the plaintiff, Monon Stone Company, and received by the defendant, Dixson Holding Corporation, as alleged in the complaint, said material being furnished upon a contract with the contractor or subcontractor who built the building on defendant’s lot? Answer: Yes.

2. Did the plaintiff, Monon Stone Company, file a lien on the property of the defendant, Dixson Holding Corporation, for the stone furnished by it and used in the building constructed thereon within six months after the last of the said stone was furnished, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.

*8053. In wbat amount, if any, is the defendant Dixson Holding Corporation, indebted to the plaintiff for the stone furnished by the plaintiff? Answer: $2,238.52.

The facts in reference to the lien are set out in the judgment, which was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

*S. F. Hall and F. M. Whitman for plaintiff.*

*Parrish & Depf, and Ingle & Pucker for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that this case was tried in substantial compliance with the law, and that the record discloses no reversible error.

No error.
#### STATE v. GENE NANCE.

(Filed 23 November, 1960.)

1. Criminal Law §§ 125, 140—

A motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence may not be made in a criminal ease in tbe Supreme Court, but may be made only in the trial court, at the trial term, or, in case of appeal, at the next succeeding term of the Superior Court after affirmance of the judgment by the Supreme Court.

*4252. intoxicating Liquor § 13c—

Evidence of defendant’s guilt of illegal sale of intoxicating liquor to a minor *held,*sufficient to take the case to tlie jury.

Appeal by defendant from *Hooks, Special Judge,*August Criminal Term, 1960, of Cabaekus.

This is a criminal action in which the defendant, Gene Nance, was originally tried and convicted) in the Cabarrus County Recorder's Court on a warrant charging him with the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors to a minor, Bill Eudy, age 15 years. The defendant appealed to the Superior Court.

Bill Eudy testified that he was 16 years of age at the time of the trial below; that on the night of 25 November 1959 he and Ronnie Kiker went to the defendant’s home, knocked on the door and entered the hall thereof; that theretofore he and the said Ronnie Kiker had “made up between us” the money; that Ronnie toldi the defendant he wanted to buy a pint of liquor; that the defendant got the liquor and gave it to Ronnie, who handed the defendant $3.50. These boys then went to the high school where a dance was in progress and drank the liquor. Later, the same evening, these same boys and Wayne Starnes each put up some money, returned to the defendant’s home and bought another pint of liquor. Eudy testified that, “Me and Ronnie gave him (the defendant) $3.50 for it.” Ronnie Kiker testified that he was only 17 years of age at the time of the trial below.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. From the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals and assigns error.

*Attorney General Bruton, Asst. Attorney General McGalliard for the State.*

*Ann L. McKenzie for defendant.*

Pee CüRiam.

The defendant has filed) in this Court a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

A motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence in a criminal case may be made in the trial court only, at the trial term, or, in case of appeal, at the next succeeding term of the Superior Court after affirmance of the judgment by the Supreme Court. *S. v. Casey,*201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81; *S. v. Edwards,*205 N.C. 661, 172 S.E. 399; S. *v. Gibson,*229 N.C. 497, 50 S.E. 2d 520.

The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court below to grant his motion for judgment as of nonsuit made at the close *426of the State’s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence. In our opinion, the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury. This assignment of error is overruled.

No prejudicial error has been made to appear that in our opinion would justify the granting of a new trial.

No error.
#### H. A. SOMERS v. UNIVERSAL CREDIT COMPANY.

(Filed 4 November, 1931.)

Damages E a — Evidence held insufficient to support issue as to punitive damages.

Punitive damages for the wrongful seizure of the plaintiff’s car are not recoverable when the evidence tends to show that the car was seized with the consent of the plaintiff, and where the jury awards punitive damages on such evidence in addition to compensatory damages for the wrongful seizure, the judgment rendered on the verdict will he modified by striking out the answer to the issue relating to the punitive damages.

Appeal by defendant from *Frizzelle, J.,*at Second May Term, 1931, of AlaMANOE.

Modified and affirmed.

The jury returned the following verdict:

1. Did the defendant wrongfully seize the car of plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

2. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover as com-piensatory damages? Answer: $149.00.

3. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover as punitive damages. Answer: $500.00.

4. In what amount, if any, is the plaintiff indebted to the defendant on the contract price of the automobile? Answer: Nothing.

Judgment for the plaintiff; appeal by the defendant.

*Leivis C. Allen for appellant.*

*John 8. Thomas for appellee.*

*602Pee, CueiaM.

We have discovered no evidence sufficient to sustain tbe answer to tbe third issue. His Honor instructed tbe jury to award punitive damages if they found from tbe evidence that tbe defendant seized tbe car in a rude and oppressive manner indicating malice, wantonness, and ill-will. Tbe plaintiff testified that be laid tbe car key on bis counter and said to tbe defendant’s agent, “If be desired to take it, there it was; if be wanted to take tbe car, there was tbe key; if be desired to take it, there it was.” This was equivalent to consent.

Tbe jury awarded compensatory damages possibly because tbe plaintiff subsequently told tbe agent not to take tbe car away.

Tbe answer to tbe third issue will be stricken out, and as thus modified tbe judgment is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATIONS





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), Anna E. Gluskin, Chief Executive
Officer and President of Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the "Company"), and
Rose C. Perri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies
that, to the best of her knowledge:





1.           The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 to
which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and





2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of
the period covered by the Report.





DATE:
      March 10, 2010
                By: /s/ Anna E. GluskinAnna
      E. Gluskin, Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)DATE:
      March 10, 2010
                By: /s/ Rose C. PerriRose
      C. Perri, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
ex4_6-f20f12312010.htm


Exhibit 4.6


 


Summary of the Construction Agreement with Shanghai Kai Tian Construction (Group) Co. Ltd.


 


On July 29, 2010, Shanghai Jinpan Electric (Group) Co. Ltd. ( the“Company”) entered into an agreement (“Agreement”) with Shanghai Kai Tian Construction (Group) Co. Ltd. (“General Contractor”) for the construction of one employee dormitory building at Company’s Shanghai facility.


 


According to the Agreement, the General Contractor agreed to start construction of the building on September 9, 2010 and complete construction on February 26, 2011.  The Company agreed to pay the General Contractor RMB 5.5 million for the building.    The price includes the cost of labor and materials.


 


The Company agreed to pay the General Contractor in several installments based on the progress of the construction:


 



	 	
·   The Company would pay 20% of the contract price when the General Contractor completes the four floors of the building.


	 	  
	 	
·   The Company would pay 20% of the contract price within one (1) week of General Contractor completing construction of the roof of the building.


	 	  
	 	
·   The Company would pay 20% of the contract price within one (1) week of the General Contractor completing the floors, walls, doors, and windows, and passing inspection;


	 	  
	 	
·   The Company would pay 35% of the contract price when the General Contractor completes the building, passes inspection, and submit the requisite documents.







 


The Company would hold the remaining 5% of the contract price as quality assurance for a period of 24 months after the building passes final inspection.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001060205
<NAME>                        PLAYSTAR WYOMING HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                          1,634,016
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,793,266
<PP&E>                            294,911
<DEPRECIATION>                     16,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,159,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             214,035
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            2,859
<OTHER-SE>                      1,942,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,159,186
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   19,536
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  554,377
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (534,841)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (534,841)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (534,841)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.02)
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mtniteb ~tate~ (!Court of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI (!Cirntit

WILLIAM o. WAGONER,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

2013-3006

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in case no. CH0831110115-B-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

William Wagoner moves for leave to proceed in forma

pauperIs.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motions are granted.

Case: 13-3006 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2012
WILLIAM WAGONER v. OPM

824

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

2

Case: 13-3006 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 11/29/2012
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 13996 Non

- Argument C alendar

________________________ D.C. D ocket N o . 6:18

- cr - 00171

- RBD

- LRH

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner

- Appellee,

versus JEROME LAMAR PITTS, a.k.a. Jeron Pitts, D efendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( June 22, 2021 )
B efore WILSON , JORDAN , and GRANT , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : Jerome Pitts appeals his sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment for knowingly receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)

USCA11 Case: 19-13996 Date Filed: 06/22/2021 Page: 1 of 22 and (b)(1). The government moves to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Pitts’s plea
agreement included a sentence appeal waiver

. Because t he record confirms that Pitts knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that this appeal does not fall under any of the waiver’s exceptions , the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 13 43, 1350

– 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily).

USCA11 Case: 19-13996 Date Filed: 06/22/2021 Page: 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00486-CV

Elgin TRACY, Adolph Tracy, and Travis Morgan,

Appellants

v.

Edward W. CHAMRAD Jr.,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-05-0240-CVW

Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 16, 2015

DISMISSED

Appellants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. Appellee was served with a copy of 

Appellants’ motion, but Appellee has not filed a response. Therefore, we grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of this appeal are taxed against 

Appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1789

Johnson Outdoors, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions_03.20.1

9.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 11.1


                    Ciro International, Inc. and Subsidiaries
           Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Quarters                 Six Months
Periods Ended June 30                           2000         1999          2000        1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                          <C>          <C>           <C>          <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:

Net Loss:                                     $(21,868)     $(5,150)     $(14,216)    $(10,919)

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding          7,160,000    7,160,000     7,160,000    7,160,000

Basic Earnings Per Share                            --           --            --           --
                                             =========    =========     =========    =========
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Aethlon Medical, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-182902, 333-168483,333-168481, 333-164939, 333-160532, 333-145290, 333-127911, 333-114017 and 333-49896) and Form S-1 (File No. 333-201334) of ourreport dated June 25, 2015 relating to the audits of the consolidated financial statements of Aethlon Medical, Inc. and Subsidiary(collectively the “Company”) as of March 31, 2015 and 2014 and for each of the years then ended appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2015.

** **

/s/ Squar, Milner, Peterson,Miranda & Williamson, LLP

 

Newport Beach,California

June 25, 2015
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

September 5, 2012

Order 

September 5, 2012

145748

PROTECT OUR JOBS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145748

COA: 311828

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

CITIZENS PROTECTING MICHIGAN’S

CONSTITUTION,

Intervening Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________________________

This cause having been brought to this Court by application for leave to appeal 

from the decision of the Court of Appeals and having been argued by counsel and due 

deliberation having been had thereon, it is ordered that the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals is affirmed. Pursuant to MCR 7.317(C)(3), the Clerk is directed to issue this 

judgment order forthwith. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      17,196,080
<SECURITIES>                                17,215,728
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,909,018
<PP&E>                                       4,516,016
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,749,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,958,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,041,219
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,036
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,496,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,958,200
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,406,205
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,972,893
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,461,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,461,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,461,778)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.50)


</TABLE>