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

<ARTICLE>         5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      33,308,221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,451,293
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (749,577)
<INVENTORY>                                 24,188,923
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            91,976,688
<PP&E>                                     103,667,413
<DEPRECIATION>                            (58,748,272)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             145,920,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,166,817
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,594,867
<OTHER-SE>                                 103,804,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               145,920,482
<SALES>                                     42,888,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,334,570
<CGS>                                       35,041,549
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,041,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,329,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,963,206
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,907,748
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,055,458
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,055,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report of Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvin S.
Gordon, as Chief Executive Officer of Paradise, Inc., 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 my knowledge:


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

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of
          operations of Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Melvin S. Gordon            Date:  August 13, 2003
       -----------------------------
       Melvin S. Gordon
       Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
214 So.2d 425

#### R. L. THORNTON, Sr., et al. v. Lennie E. TUTT et al.

2 Div. 476.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 6, 1968.

Rehearing- Denied Oct. 10, 1968,

*73J. Mason Davis, Birmingham, for appellants.

Lindsey & Lindsey, Butler, for appellees.

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by respondents from a final decree for complainants rendered by the Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama, in Equity.

Assignment of error No. 1 was not mentioned or argued by appellant and is therefore waived. Rule 9, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 279 Ala. XXIII.

Assignments of error numbered 2 through 6 relate only to errors alleged to have been made by the court reporter in taking down the testimony or in transcribing it, and not to an error by the court.

 Only adverse rulings of the trial court are subject to assignments of error and reviewable on appeal. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. State, 274 Ala. 544, 150 So.2d 677. In these assignments of error, no error is alleged to have been committed by the trial court and there is nothing for this Court to review.

Assignments of error numbered 7 through. 10 are as follows:

> “7. Page 59, Final Decree. The court erred in that there is no evidence to support the finding and judgment of the court against your appellants and petitioners.

> “8. Page 59, Final Decree. The decree is contrary to the facts in the case.

> “9. Page 59, Final Decree. That the decree is contrary to the law in the case.

> “10. Page 59, Final Decree. For that-the decree is not sustained by the great preponderance of the errors.”

These assignments of error, 7, 8, 9 and 10, are argued in bulk; 8, 9 and 10 are faulty in that they are too general. Andrews v. May, 277 Ala. 248, 168 So.2d 619 ; Smith v. Jackson, 277 Ala. 257, 169 So.2d 21; Carlton v. Musicians Protective Association, Local No. 479, 276 Ala. 128, 159 So.2d 831; Thomas v. Brook, 274 Ala. 462,, 149 So.2d 809; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. State, supra; Roan v. Smith, 272 Ala. 538, 133 So.2d 224; Morris v. Yancey, 272 Ala, 549, 132 So.2d 754; Bertolla & Sons v. Kaiser, 267 Ala. 435, 103 So.2d 736; Rule, 1, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 279 Ala. XXIII.

The 7th assignment of error is argued in bulk with assignments of error 8, 9 and 10, and as 8, 9 and 10 are faulty because too general, assignment of error 7 must also fail. When unrelated assignments of error are argued in bulk, and one is faulty, all must fail.

Affirmed.

LAWSON, MERRILL and HAR-WOOD, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph Camino, Appellant, v. William J. Hamilton, Respondent.

Order modified so as to require the defendant, in addition to the terms imposed by the order, to pay ten dollars costs of motion, thirty dollars trial fee, and the disbursements of the inquest and entry of judgment, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Mo opinion. Settle order on notice.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.11

                             AMERICAN PAGING, INC.
                        1996 SPECIAL BONUS OPPORTUNITY

     On September 27, 1997 Ted Carlson agreed in principle to a Special Bonus 
Opportunity for Terrence T. Sullivan and certain of his senior managers for 
the successful accomplishment of key objectives the last four months of 1996 
to position the company for success in 1997. A plan was submitted by API to 
TDS which contained ten critical success projects which needed to be complete 
by the start of 1997. The specific projects were:

1.  Implementation of standardized pricing

2.  Development of a channel distribution plan

3.  Implementation of a goal-aligned field compensation plan

4.  Implementation of a performance managed sales organization

5.  Implementation of a company-wide inventory system

6.  Establishment of a customer retention group within the Customer Telecare 
    Center

7.  Source and select a new customer billing and information management system

8.  Development of a spectrum plan

9.  Issuing of location and department level budgets by January 1st

10. Redesign billing system and general ledger system to support 
    performance management reporting

     This plan received final approval in November 1996 and contained the 
following provisions for bonus:

     -  The successful accomplishment of each of the ten projects would earn 
        the following executives 3% of 1996 year-end salary as long as a 
        minimum of five projects were successfully completed:

          -  Terrence Sullivan, President/CEO

          -  Malcolm Humphrey, VP Information Technology/CIO

          -  Larry Piumbroeck, VP Development and Engineering

     -  In addition to the above, a designated project manager for each 
        successfully completed project may be named and awarded a bonus of 3%
        of year-end 1996 salary.

     -  A TDS senior manager was appointed to be the evaluator of each 
        project's completion to certify to Ted Carlson that the project was 
        eligible for bonus

     On January 26, 1997 API submitted documents to TDS representing the 
supporting material for eight projects completed under this plan. In 
accordance with the plan's design, the eight projects were reviewed by 
various senior managers of TDS and on February 28, 1997 all eight of the 
submitted projects were certified for approval and bonus payment. As a result 
of this approval, API paid the following bonus amounts to officers on March 
14, 1997:

          Terrence Sullivan        24% of salary ($46,800)
          Malcolm Humphrey         24% of salary ($28,800)
          Larry Piumbroeck         24% of salary ($22,620)
          George Orr               6%  of salary ($6,300)
          James Kelly              12% of pro-rated salary ($3,200)
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 DAKTRONICS, INC.
 
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Daktronics, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the annual period ended May 1, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James B. Morgan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 my knowledge:
 
 (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 operations of the Company.
  /s/ James B. MorganJames B. MorganChief Executive OfficerJune 16, 2010
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Krisher, Appellant, v Graver Tank Manufacturing Company, Inc., Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[677 NYS2d 646]

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 9, 1997, which ruled that claimant had not sustained a causally related disability during the discrete period of April 10, 1995 to June 17, 1996.

In 1990, claimant injured his back while lifting welding lead weighing approximately 125 pounds and thereafter filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. In January 1994, claimant underwent surgery to his back. Thereafter, claimant sought treatment for an injury to his left knee, which, according to his doctors, occurred as a result of claimant’s position during his back surgery. In February 1995, claimant underwent surgery to remove a tumor from his knee and, in April 1995, his doctors stated that he could return to work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded claimant benefits for his reduced earnings during the discrete period of April 10, 1995 to June 17, 1996; the Workers’ Compensation Board, however, modified the findings of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and concluded that claimant had no causally related disability during that time. Claimant appeals and we affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant did not have a causally related disability during the relevant time period. Claimant’s orthopedic surgeon, Roy Wert, testified that as of April 10, 1995 claimant could return to work without any restrictions. Claimant did not seek any medical treatment for his back injury during the relevant time period and the record indicates that he was working during this time. George Fuksa, an orthopedic surgeon, opined that claimant’s knee injury was not caused by his back surgery but was a preexisting injury. Consequently, the Board’s decision that claimant did not have a causally related disability during the time period of April 1995 to June 1996 is supported by substantial evidence *(see generally, Matter of Minnard v Cortland Glass Co.,*217 AD2d 715).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
**Exhibit 21.1**

Subsidiaries of the Company 

Riverbed Technology Limited (UK) 

Riverbed Technology Sarl (France) 

Riverbed Technology Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)

Riverbed Technology GmbH (Germany) 

Riverbed Technology PtyLtd. (Australia) 

Riverbed Technology Korea, Inc. (Korea) 

Riverbed Technology Limited (Hong Kong) 

Riverbed Technology K.K. (Japan) 

Riverbed Technology B.V. (Netherlands) 

Riverbed Technology India Private Limited (India) 

Riverbed Technology International, Inc. (Delaware) 

Riverbed Technology AG(Switzerland) 

Riverbed Technology SL (Spain) 

RiverbedTechnology Canada LTD (Canada) 

Riverbed Technology South Africa (Proprietary) Limited (South Africa) 

Riverbed Technology S.r.l. (Italy) 

Riverbed Technology Limited (New Zealand)

Riverbed Technology AB (Sweden) 

Riverbed Technology Sdn. Bhd.(Malaysia) 

Riverbed Technology S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico) 

Riverbed Technology FZ-LLC (Dubai) 

Riverbed Tecnologia De Informacao Ltda (Brazil) 

Riverbed Technology Sp. z o.o. (Poland) 

Riverbed Technology Ltd. (Thailand) 

Riverbed Technology Ltd. (Israel) 

Riverbed Technology LLC (Russia)

Riverbed Technology S.R.L. (Argentina) 

Riverbed TechnologyGmbH (Austria)
#### Joseph SCHOENY v. ASCENSION REALTY CO. et al.

No. 1974.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 30, 1939.

Rehearing Granted Sept. 5, 1939.

Walter Lemann, of Donaldsonville, for appellant.

George R. Blum and S. A. LeBlanc, Jr., both of Donaldsonville, for appellees.

DORE, Judge.

This is a petitory action involving a certain portion of ground in the Parish of Ascension between State Highway fío. 29 and the edge of Bayou Lafourche immediately in front of Lots One and Two of Square No. 79 of Port Barrow, La. It is agreed by and between the parties that the facts and issues herein are similar to those in the case of Joseph Casso, Jr., v. Ascension Realty Company et al., La.App., 190 So. 198, and that the decision in the latter case’ must necessarily be controlling herein. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in our decision in the case of Joseph Casso, Jr., v. Ascension Realty Company et al., it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered that the plaintiff and defendant, The Ascension Realty Company, be and they are hereby recognized as the owners of the following described property: “A certain portion of ground or land in the Parish of Ascension, Louisiana, between State Highway No. 29 and the edge of Bayou Lafourche, and lying immediately in front of Lots One (1) and Two (2) of Square Number Seventy-nine (79) of the subdivision of Port Barrow, which Lots 1 and 2 in Square No. 79 are more fully shown by. reference to a plan of Port Barrow made by V. Sulakow-ski on file in the records of Ascension Parish; the upper and lower boundaries of said tract being formed by extending the upper line of Lot No. 1 and the lower line of Lot No. 2 to the water’s edge on Bayou Lafourche,” in the proportion of one-third to plaintiff and two-thirds to the defendant, The Ascension Realty Company; all the costs of this suit to be borne by the parties litigant in proportion to their respective rights and interest.

W. CARRUTH JONES, Judge ad hoc, concurs.

OTT, J., dissenting.

Le BLANC, J., recused.
EX-35 (b)
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

DBALT 2006-AF1

I, Michael De Francesco, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

1.   A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
     January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable
     portion thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable
     servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Agreement.

Date: February 28, 2007

/s/ Michael De Francesco
Michael De Francesco
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000075644
<NAME> ZEMEX CORPORATION
<CURRENCY> U.S
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         688,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,295,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (303,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 18,292,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,666,000
<PP&E>                                     133,797,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (42,942,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,935,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,182,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     8,752,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  74,933,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               151,935,000
<SALES>                                     27,910,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,910,000
<CGS>                                       19,583,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,080,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (870,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,910,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   535,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,388,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,388,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
# Fou rth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 30, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00342

- CV

Greg ABBOTT, in his Official Capacity as Governor of Texas, Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO and County of Bexar,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI16133 Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellees’ unopposed motion to shorten the times for filing briefs and providing notice

of the submission date is GRANTED

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d), 39.8. Therefore, in accordance with the motion, appellant’s brief is due on or before September 7, 2021 ; appellees’

brief is due on or before September 14, 2021 ; and appellant’s reply brief is due on or before September 20, 2021 . Additionally, in accordance with the motion, the clerk of this court is not required to provide the parties twenty

- one days’ notice of the submission date for this acce lerated appeal.

It is so ORDE RED August 30

, 202 1

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______ ____________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAA L :—

PR 24-0005 

MAR - 5 20211 

Bowen GreenwooCi Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana 

IN RE MOTION OF HENRY DARRELL MADSEN FOR 

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA 

ORDER 

Henry Darrell Madsen has moved for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Madsen has provided the necessary documentation 

and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Henry Darrell Madsen may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State 

of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the 

Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this day of March, 2024. 

Chief Justice 

03/05/2024

Case Number: PR 24-0005
Exhibit 23.01














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements filed by Neuralstem, Inc. on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-142451, 333-150574, 333-153387, 333-157079, 333-169847 and 333-165973) and on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-152801 and 333-172563) of our report dated March 16, 2011 with respect to the audit of the balance sheets of Neuralstem, Inc. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then ended and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Neuralstem, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.











/s/ Stegman & Company





Baltimore, Maryland


March 16, 2011
|   | **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 on Form 10-KSB for the period                ended December 31, 2007 of PlasmaTech, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the                “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Christopher J. Brough, Chairman,                President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.                Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,                that:

 

1. The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and

 

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

 

Date: March 18, 2008

 

/s/ David A. Saltrelli

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

David A. Saltrelli

President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive                Officer,

Principal Financial Officer and Director
FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/23/2015 9:42:16 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk