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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ORANGE AND
ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      920,259
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     10,624
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         188,812
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       151,324
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,271,019
<COMMON>                                        68,274
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      127,516
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            182,029
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 377,819
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     43,227
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           276,642
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               4,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  95,050
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   78,038
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      1,681
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   167
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 393,895
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,271,019
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      482,241
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            18,707
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     405,330
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     424,037
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         58,204
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (16,215)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  41,989
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        23,500
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,489
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,099
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   16,390
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        26,420
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       18,118
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          63,481
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Calpine Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge, based upon a review of the Report:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|                                   |  |                             
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                                   | 
|/s/ JACK A. FUSCO                  |  | /s/ ZAMIR RAUF              
|Robert P. May                      |  | Zamir Rauf                  
|President, Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President and
|and Director                       |  | Chief Financial Officer     
|Calpine Corporation                |  | Calpine Corporation         

Dated: February 26, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Calpine Corporation and will be retained by Calpine Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### STATE ex rel. Alyce HAIGHT v. VERNON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD (Miss Pearle PEACE, Intervener).

No. 1792.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1938.

Olin D. Moore and J. Reuel Boone, both of Many, for plaintiff.

Edwin M. Fraser, of Many, for defendant

Woosley & Cavanaugh, of Leesville, for intervener.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons given in State ex rel. Austin L. Temple v. Vernon Parish School Board, Intervention of Miss Pearle Peace, La.App., 178 So. 176, this day decided, the motion to dismiss or remand the case is overruled; and it is ordered that the judgment dismissing the intervention of Miss Pearle Peace is affirmed at her costs; and that the judgment in favor of relator and against the defendant school board is affirmed at the cost of defendant.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                                 TRANSTAR, INC.

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               For the year ended December 31,
                                                                  1999          1998         1997         1996          1995
                                                                --------      --------     --------     --------       -------
<S>                                                             <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>            <C>
Income before income taxes,
  extraordinary item and change in
  accounting principle.................................         $ 85,830      $ 95,757     $110,579     $103,714       $93,915
Fixed charges:
Interest expense and amortization of
  debt issuance costs..................................         $  9,516      $ 12,942     $ 17,358     $ 21,314       $24,144
Interest expense on rentals............................            8,241         7,904        7,976        7,854         6,057
                                                                --------      --------     --------     --------       -------
       Total fixed charges.............................         $ 17,757      $ 20,846     $ 25,334     $ 29,168       $30,201
                                                                ========      ========     ========     ========       =======
Earnings before income taxes,
  extraordinary item, change in
  accounting principle and fixed charges ..............         $103,587      $116,603     $135,913     $132,882      $124,116
                                                                ========      ========     ========     ========      ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.....................             5.83          5.59         5.36         4.56          4.11
                                                                    ====          ====         ====         ====          ====
</TABLE>
----------
Income for the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 includes non-recurring charges
(credits) of $(1.0) million, $7.0 million ,$3.5 million, and $0.9 million,
respectively.
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

     I,  Dennis  Sunshine, Chief Executive Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarterly period ended
September  30,  2007  (the  "Periodic  Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.
Dated: November 13, 2007
                                   /s/ Dennis Sunshine
                                   -------------------
                                   Dennis Sunshine
                                   Chief Executive Officer

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Orbit International Corp. and will
be  retained  by  Orbit  International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

September 8, 2017

a0905 

# Order

Clerk September 8, 2017

155829 & (59)(60)

KIMBERLY HATCHER,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155829

COA: 330062

Macomb CC: 2013

- 003906

- NF

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to

the dismissal of this application for le ave to appeal is considered, and the application for

leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
#### Mark Steven STANTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT; Bonnie Boyette; Edward Conn; R. Rich; Jay Clark, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7704.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2008.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Mark Steven Stanton, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Mark Steven Stanton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Stanton v. Bennett,*No. CA-01-546-5-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Oct. 25, 2002, entered Oct. 29, 2002). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
confinement. See Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 686 P.2d 250 (1984). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Allen Stanislouis Heusner 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 194Th )4Z1Z(9D
#### Halliday *v.*The York Lake Co. et al. Halliday *v.*The Richmond Improvement Co. et al. Halliday *v.*The Inland Properties Co. et al.

*(Nos.*23735, 23736 and 23737

Decided December 7, 1932.)

*611*Messrs. Farquharson, Curtiss, Gillie, Gustafson <& Miller,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Mooney, Hahn, Loeser, Keough & Beam*and *Mr. Martin Goulder,*for the Richmond Improvement Company and Peter Halliday.

*Mr. Kent Meyers,*for Francis J. Horvath, receiver of Richmond Improvement Company.

By the Court.

The ultimate issue in these cases is whether the properties in question belong to Robert W. Halliday, subject to his father’s rights under the statute, or to the corporations; in other words, whether or not the real estate standing in the name of the corporations is to be treated as real or personal property.

*612The Court of Appeals found that the real estate was to be considered and treated as personal property, and distribution made in accordance with such finding.

This controversy between Eobert W. Halliday, Peter Halliday, individually, and Peter Halliday as administrator of Janet M. Halliday’s estate, has but one basic question, and in the several cases the courts’ findings have been that the corporate assets belong and should be conveyed and delivered to the administrator and not to Eobert W. Halliday as heir at law of Janet M. Halliday.

The Court of Appeals found that the question was *res judicata,*being between the same parties, upon the same subject-matter, and involving the same rights, asserted in somewhat different form in the various eases.

We are of opinion that the contention of plaintiff in error that his case originated in the Court of Appeals is not well founded, and that his intervention by motion in the Court of Appeals in the instant case did not make his case one originating in that court. The cases of *Cohen*v. *Goldberger,*108 Ohio St., 243, 140 N. E., 514, and *Bettman*v. *Kuerze,*117 Ohio St., 225, 157 N. E., 487, are not controlling. The motion to dismiss the petition in error filed as of right is therefore sustained.

*Motion sustained.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Paradigm Medical  Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John Y. Yoon,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

         (b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
              material respect, the financial condition and result of operations
              of the Company.



                                           /s/ John Y. Yoon
                                           -------------------------------------
Date: November 4, 2004                     John Y. Yoon
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, BALANCE SHEET, AND STATEMENT OF
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000811156
<NAME> CMS ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        4,097
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,931
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,944
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         3,735
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,707
<COMMON>                                             1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        2,626
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              (110)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   2,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,119
<PREFERRED>                                         44
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,527
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 278
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        5,391
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      514
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        197
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    33
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   4,087
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   15,707
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        3,426
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                68
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       2,928
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       2,996
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            430
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  61
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     491
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           282
<NET-INCOME>                                       209
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         48
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      161
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            82
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             183
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42


</TABLE>
#### Ex Parte Jack Meeks and James Sanders.

No. 24731.

February 1, 1950.

*Fryer & Milstead,*El Paso, for petitioner.

*William E. Clayton,*District Attorney, El Paso, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relators were both charged with the unlawful killing of one, Enrique Tercero, a carpenter; and upon the hearing and granting of a writ of habeas corpus before the late lamented Judge W. D. Howe, they were both refused bail and were remanded to the custody of the sheriff.

The facts presented by the state show that these men, after some kind of a difficulty with some Mexicans at a town called Dell City in- Hudspeth County, each relator being armed, one with a pistol and one with a shotgun, entered the tent house in which the deceased and his wife were living on a ranch about a mile from such town. Several shots were fired by them, and the body of the deceased was soon found with two fatal wounds thereon, one from a bullet and another from a shotgun, either wound being fatal.

No testimony was offered by the relators.

We think the testimony here shown justified the careful trial judge in refusing bail.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
220 So.2d 851

#### Robert C. SIMMONS, Jr. v. E. B. HALE et al.

2 Div. 524.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 13, 1969.

Reeves & Stewart, Selma, for appellant.

Albert Copeland and James Garrett, .Montgomery, for appellees.

LAWSON, Justice.

The appeal is dismissed on the authority of Simmons v. Hale et al., 283 Ala. 685, 220 So.2d 851, this day decided.

Appeal dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL .and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Alfred Lee Rice

, * From the 142nd District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR41089

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00302

- CR * October 30 , 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(P anel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment s below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment s of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
*

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1554

___________

Lloyd R. Holmes, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

State of Georgia; Linda L. Thurn, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 2, 2004

Filed: September 10, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lloyd R. Holmes appeals the district court’s*

 pre-service dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) of Holmes's complaint asserting violations of the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Fourteenth Amendment. After careful de

novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam),

we conclude dismissal was proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________
#### Ida Antoinette Nellis, Appellant, v. James G. Nellis, as Executor, etc., of Magdalen Nellis, Deceased, Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.