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



<ARTICLE>      5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,232,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                67,000
<INVENTORY>                                 2,729,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,991,000
<PP&E>                                      143,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              922,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              5,896,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,217,000
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    15,815,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (14,432,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                5,896,000
<SALES>                                     2,574,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,574,000
<CGS>                                       1,359,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,701,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          55,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (192,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (192,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (192,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

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

                           CERTIFICATE OF REINSURANCE
                                     FOR THE
                            AGREEMENT OF REINSURANCE
                                   between the
                  WORKERS' COMPENSATION REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION
                                       and

                     AMERICAN COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY









January 1, 1997 - December 31, 1997                  Retention Limit: $1,080,000

This certifies that the entity named above is a Member of the Workers'
Compensation Reinsurance Association (Association) as of the date indicated
below, and that the Association reinsures the Member's liability for benefits
pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 176 in excess of the Member's retention limit for
the period indicated above.  This certificate shall not be valid for any portion
of the indicated period during which the entity is not a Member of the
Association.


                                                Workers' Compensation
                                                Reinsurance Association




                                                /s/ Jay Benanav
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Jay Y. Benanav
                                                President and Chief Executive
                                                Officer

                                                Dated: Monday, February 17, 1997




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


                              [LETTERHEAD ADDRESS]
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT**

**TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Ashraf M. Dahod,certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Starent Networks, Corp.;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date:  | August 9, 2007 | ** ** | **/s/  Ashraf M. Dahod**                   |
|--------|----------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | ** **     | ** ** | **Ashraf  M. Dahod**                       |
|   | ** **     | ** ** | **President  and Chief Executive Officer** |

 

----
| Name of Subsidiary              | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Star Circuits, Inc.             | South Dakota                  |
| MSC Technologies, Inc.          | South Dakota                  |
| Daktronics Media Holdings, Inc. | South Dakota                  |
| Daktronics Canada, Inc.         | Canada                        |
| Daktronics, GmbH                | Germany                       |
| Daktronics UK, Ltd              | Great Britain                 |
| Daktronics Hong Kong Ltd        | Hong Kong                     |
| Daktronics Shanghai Ltd         | Peoples Republic of China     |
| Daktronics France SARL          | France                        |
| Daktronics Beijing Ltd          | Peoples Republic of China     |
| Daktronics Hoist, Inc.          | New York                      |
| Daktronics Australia PTY LTD    | Australia                     |
| Daktronics FZE                  | United Arab of Emirates       |
| Daktronics Installation, Inc.   | South Dakota                  |
| Daktronics Japan, Inc.          | Japan                         |
FILED

May 9, 1996

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE 

 FEBRUARY 1996 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

Appellee, ) No. 01C01-9507-CR-00220

 )

) Davidson County

v. ) 

) Hon. Ann Lacy Johns, Judge 

)

ROBERT LEE BAILEY, JR., ) (Sale of Cocaine and Evading Arrest)

) 

Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the majority opinion, but I write separately to stress my concern

about the use of evidence of complaints about drug dealing near a school for the

ostensible purpose of explaining why the police were conducting the undercover

investigation where they did. We need not “assume” it to be inadmissible -- we should

declare it to be because its risk of prejudice substantially outweighs its nominal

relevance. There was no good reason for the police to explain anything other than that

they were conducting an undercover drug investigation. One treatise has recognized as

an “area of apparently widespread abuse” the allowing of police officers to relate

hearsay statements, such as complaints and reports, for the supposed purpose of

explaining the officers’ presence and conduct. 2 John William Strong McCormick On

Evidence at 104 (4th ed. 1992); see also State v. Randall Gibbs, Dickson Co., No.

01C01-9409-CC-00300 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 14, 1995) (Summers, concurring). Such

an abuse occurred in this case. It is only because the evidence is overwhelming in

showing the defendant’s guilt that I agree that the conviction should be affirmed. 

 

 Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00062

- CR

IN RE: JEFFREY MCGILL

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeffrey McGill has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this Court to

order William H. McCoy, who he identifies as his counsel of record in the underlying case, to

turn over to him all documents and exhibits related to his conviction in the Fifth Judicial District

Court of Cass County, Texas. McGill indicates that he desires to pursue a petition for writ of

habeas corpus and seeks the documents so that he may do so effectively.

This C ourt has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or

county court in th e court of appeals district.” T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221(b) (West 2004)

.

McCoy does not fall within those categories, and the request does not impact an appeal to this

Court. We therefore have no jurisdiction to issue the writ.

We deny t he petition

.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: April 8 , 2014

Date Decided: April 9 , 2014

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 31.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




I, Carl
Oberg, Chief Financial Officer of Classic Costume Company, Inc., (the
“Registrant”), certify that:




1.    I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant;




2.    Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;




3.    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;




4.    The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:




(a)    designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;




(b)    evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c)    disclosed
in this quarterly report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and




5.    The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of
directors:




(a)    all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b)    any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financial
reporting.




Dated:
May 16, 2008




/s/
      Carl Oberg
              Carl
      ObergChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00476-CV

Charles F. Rowsey, III, Appellant

v.

David Allbritton and Crystal Allbritton, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-06-003082, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Charles F. Rowsey, III has informed this Court that he has settled his

dispute with appellees David Allbritton and Crystal Allbritton and that he no longer wishes to pursue

this appeal. We therefore grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: January 17, 2008
#### David H. Spradlin v. State.

No. 25306.

May 16, 1951.

Hon. Fred Erisman, Judge Presiding.

*Herbert H. Boyland,*Longview, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The indictment charged the felony offense of driving an automobile while intoxicated. The punishment was assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The agreed statement of facts before us fails to show that the state made proof of the fact that appellant had been on a *122prior date convicted of the offense of driving an automobile while intoxicated, as alleged in the indictment. In the absence of such proof, the conviction cannot stand.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00205-CR

Richard BURNS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-7717

Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 10, 2008 

AFFIRMED

Richard Burns pleaded nolo contendere to the felony offense of enhanced assault and was

placed on community supervision for a term of eight years. The State filed a motion to revoke

Burns’s community supervision, alleging Burns had violated the terms of his supervision by using

a controlled substance (cocaine) on March 10, 2008. After a hearing on the State’s motion, the trial

court revoked Burns’s community supervision. The trial court subsequently sentenced Burns to a

term of eight years imprisonment. We affirm.
04-08-00205-CR

-2-

Burns’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation

of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Burns with a copy of the brief and

informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State,

954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177

n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Burns did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Burns wish to seek further review of this case by

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion

for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to theTexas Court

of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should

comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.R.

APP. P. 68.4. 

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 10.3


AMENDMENT TO


LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENTS





THIS AMENDMENT TO LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENTS (this “Amendment”), dated as of August 16, 2012, is entered into by and between Marine Drive Mobile Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Borrower”) and Quarry Bay Capital LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Lender”).





RECITALS





WHEREAS, the Borrower and Lender have entered into that certain Line of Credit Agreement, dated January 20, 2012 (the “First LOC Agreement”) and that certain Line of Credit Agreement, dated July 20, 2012 (the “Second LOC Agreement”, and together with the First LOC Agreement, the “LOC Agreements”).





WHEREAS, the Borrower and Lender have agreed to make certain changes to the LOC Agreements as set forth herein, including changes to the conversion price and warrant exercise price of the notes and warrants issuable pursuant to the LOC Agreements.





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:





AGREEMENT





1.           Change to Conversion Price.Section 8 of each of the LOC Agreements is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as set forth below:





8.     Share Conversion.  The Lender shall have the right to convert all or any part of the unpaid indebtedness into shares of common stock of the Borrower at the price of $0.10 per share (subject to adjustment for stock splits, stock dividends, recapitalizations and similar transactions)





2.           Change to Warrant Exercise Price.Section 9(a) of the Second LOC Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as set forth below:





9.     Share Warrants.  a) The lender shall be granted cashless warrants to buy the same number of shares as those converted, on the January 20, 2012 agreement and this agreement, at an exercise price of $0.15 per share (subject to adjustment for stock splits, stock dividends, recapitalizations and similar transactions).





3.           Effect on LOC Agreements.Except as specifically amended and modified by this Amendment, all terms, conditions, covenants and agreements set forth in the LOC Agreements shall remain in full force and effect.





4.           Governing Law.  This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Delaware.





5.           Counterparts.This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original but all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement.








[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank – Signature Page Follows]


1


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date and year first written above.







BORROWER:





Marine Drive Mobile Corp.








By:





Name:





Title:








LENDER:





Quarry Bay Capital LLC








By:





Name:





Title:





[Signature Page to Amendment to Line of Credit Agreements]
 2
18394.

#### Dodson *v.*Perkins, nee Dodson.

Candler, Justice.

On the grant of a total divorce between the parties to this litigation, permanent and exclusive custody of their minor child was awarded to the father by a decree in Fulton County Superior Court. The mother subsequently filed a petition in DeKalb County Superior Court to open and modify the former decree, alleging as a ground therefor a change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child. After a hearing, the court found from the evidence, and held accordingly, that there had been, since the first decree was rendered, no change in circumstances affecting such welfare. The mother did not *303except. But, notwithstanding his finding that the evidence was insufficient to show any change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child, the court nevertheless proceeded to modify the former decree in the following respect: “It is, however, the judgment of this court that said Mary Eliza Dodson, minor child of the parties, aged approximately four years, shall visit in the home of the child’s maternal grandmother, at reasonable times, and occasions not incompatible with the welfare and best interest of said child, in event of the father and maternal grandmother of said child being unable to agree on the occasions of such visits, the court, upon proper showing, will fix the times for said visits. Plaintiff, the mother, shall have the right to be with said child on occasion of such visits.” To this the father excepted and sued out a writ of error. *Held:*

Argxjed November 10, 1953

Decided January 11, 1954.

*Walker & Kilbride,*for plaintiff in error.

*Louise C. Busby,*contra.

The ruling complained of is erroneous. “A decree in a divorce case awarding custody of a child is conclusive as between the parties to such decree, unless a change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the child is shown.” *Brooks*v. *Thomas,*193 *Ga.*696 (19 S. E. 2d 497). See *Williams*v. *Crosby,*118 *Ga.*296 (2) (45 S. E. 282); *Fuller*v. *Fuller,*197 *Ga.*719 (30 S. E. 2d 600); *Carney*v. *Franklin,*207 *Ga.*39 (59 S. E. 2d 909), and the cases there cited. Having found from the evidence that there had been no change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor child, it was error for the court to modify the final decree.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duckworth, C. J., not participating.*
#### Eleanora Falkowska, Respondent, v. Ludwig Zemrak, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Williams and Robson, JJ., who dissented upon the ground that there was no proof that the Polish words were spoken as alleged in the complaint, except as to two words, and that as to those there was no proof as to their meaning.