alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



________________





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT,

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





DATE OF REPORT:  January 17, 2003





CHYRON CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)



|New York                                       | 1-9014                   | 11-2117385                          
|---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)



|5 Hub Drive                              |           
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|Melville, New York                       | 11747     
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code)



Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (631) 845-2000

________________









Item 5.		Other Events and Exhibits

Pursuant to Rule 135c promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Registrant files, under cover of this 8-K, the text of a public notice released by the Registrant on January 17, 2003.  The text of such notice can be found as an exhibit attached hereto.







|Exhibits | Description                                             
|-------- | --------------------------------------------------------
|         |                                                         
|1        | Press Release of the Registrant, dated January 17, 2003.





















SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



CHYRON CORPORATION



| | By:    | /s/ Jerry Kieliszak                              
| | ------ | -------------------------------------------------
| | Name:  | Jerry Kieliszak                                  
| | Title: | Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer



Date:  January 17, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric DENNY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-30195.

D.C. No. CR-01-00076-1-FVS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*940Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eric Denny appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for distribution and possession of controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.

Counsel for Denny has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Denny has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Emma I. Webb, Appellant, v. Elijah T. Webb, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

March 10, 1891.

Divorce: indignities : conduct or complainant. When a divorce is sought on the ground of indignities rendering the condition of the complainant intolerable, and the alleged indignities consist of wranglings and exhibitions of temper, due to the lack on the part of both husband and wife of a proper conciliatory spirit, the divorce should not be granted. In a case of this character, the indignities must be frequent, and not isolated, and they must be of such a nature as to tend to the subversion of the family relation ; and it must further appear that the complainant is the innocent and injui ed party.

*Appeal from the Newton Circuit Court.*— Hon. Joseph Cravens, Judge.

Affirmed.

*Thomas &*Hackney, *J. B. Johnson*and *Reynolds*<fe Lewis, for appellant.

*George Hubbert*and *Phelps &*Brown, for respondent.

Biggs, J.

Action for divorce by wife. The grounds alleged were indignities of a character to render the *230plaintiff’s condition intolerable. The defendant filed a cross-bill making counter charges of a like character, to which was added the charge of desertion. The circuit judge dismissed both the petition and cross-bill. Prom this decree the plaintiff has prosecuted an appeal.

The record in this case is very voluminous. We have read it, and have arrived at the conclusion, that both parties have failed to appreciate and observe the obligations imposed by their marriage contract. This was evidently the view of the circuit judge, and we must affirm his judgment.

It is not our intention to embody in this opinion a discussion of the evidence in order to justify our conclusion. To do so would only perpetuate, in a public way, the details of the domestic troubles and bi’oils of two very respectable persons. However, we deem it but justice to the parties to say that, aside from their mutual wranglings and unseemly exhibitions of temper, their lives seem to have been quite exemplary. Uncontrolled tempers, and the lack of a conciliatory spirit, seem to have been at the foundation of all their troubles. To these may be added the unwarranted interference of outsiders, which, to some extent, served to aggravate matters. Domestic unhappiness, which is produced by such conduct, will not justify any court in granting a divorce. The marriage contract requires the parties to make concessions, the one to the other. Married life is made up of compromises, and each spouse is expected to submit to the ordinary infirmities of human nature. In cases like the one under consideration the indignities must be frequent, and not isolated, and they must be of such a nature as to tend to the subversion of the family relation. In addition to this, it must appear that the complainant is the innocent and injured party. The court, which stops short of this in granting a divorce, fails in its duty to the state and to society.

The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

All the judges concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Tactical Solution Partners, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William A. Shafley, Principal Executive Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



| |                                               
| | ----------------------------------------------
| | /s/ WILLIAMA. SHAFLEY                         
| | William A. Shafley
Principal Executive Officer
| |                                               
| | Date: March 18, 2008                          
| |                                               



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT 35.2**

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE** 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “Administrative Agent”), dohereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005 (the“Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer, and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-4 Trustfor the 2006 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

1.                  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has beenmade under my supervision.

2.                  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the ServicingAgreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year. 

Dated as of February 22, 2007.
|  

/s/ Barbara Campbell________________Name:  Barbara CampbellTitle:    First Vice President |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Hiram Merritt and George H. Merritt, Respondents, v. Perry E. Wilson, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed by default, with costs. Woodward, Jenks, Heoker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.
|   | **Exhibit 32.2** |
|--------|------------------|

 

**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 LILM, Inc. (the "Company") on            Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and            Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,**George I. Norman, III**, Principal Accounting            Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant            to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(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 result of operations of            the Company.

 

| /s/ | **GEORGEI.NORMAN,III** |
|-----|------------------------|

 

**George I. Norman, III**

Principal Accounting Officer

March            14 , 2008

 

 

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 has been provided to            the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and            Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are            accompanying the Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of            title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a            separate disclosure document.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00375-CR

EX PARTE DOUGLAS RAY EVANS

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-1876-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A document, specifically addressed to this Court and entitled, “Rebuttal of State 

Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” was received from Douglas Ray Evans on 

November 20, 2023. This document was interpreted and filed by this Court on November 

21, 2023, as a notice of appeal. 

By letter dated November 28, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Evans that his 

appeal was subject to dismissal because there was no final, appealable judgment or order 

from which to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Specifically, the Clerk informed Evans 

that findings of fact and conclusions of law were not separately appealable. In the same 

letter, the Clerk warned Evans that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within 21 days 

from the date of the letter, Evans responded and explained what he attempted to appeal 
Ex parte Evans Page 2

and how the Court had jurisdiction of the appeal. Evans timely responded and informed 

the Court that the document was intended to be sent to the 19th District Court in 

McLennan County, Texas, not this Court. 

Accordingly, based on Evans’ representation, we dismiss this appeal and return 

the original document to Evans. The Court has maintained a copy of the document in 

Court’s TAMES filing system under this appellate case number.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith 

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 4, 2024

Do not publish

[OT06]
----

----

| (1) | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a) or 78o(d); and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: August 15, 2011 |   | /s/Robert T. Strong                   |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Robert T. Strong                      |
|                  |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

| Date: August 15, 2011 |   | /s/John J. Augustine    |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                  |   | John J. Augustine       |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit 11


                      WESTERN COUNTRY CLUBS, INC.

                   CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                           DECEMBER 31, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   Weighted
                                             Shares       Days      Average
                                    Date   Outstanding Outstanding   Shares
                                  -------- ----------- ----------- ---------
<S>                               <C>        <C>           <C>     <C>
BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:
  Common shares outstanding at
    December 31, 1998             12/31/98   3,734,721     365      3,734,721

  10% Preferred stock                           40,000     365         40,000

  12% Preferred stock              2/23/99      14,500      53          2,105

  Common stock issued in
    settlement of accounts
    payable                        1/1/98      15,000      365         15,000

  Common stock issued in
    settlement of accounts
    payable                         2/3/99     40,000      331         36,274

  Common stock issued in
    settlement of accounts
    payable                         6/23/99     1,000      191            523

  Derrick & Briggs - 6/30/99 -
    50,000 for legal services
    performed                       6/30/99    50,000      184         25,205

  Common stock issued for
    settlement of litigation        6/23/99     5,000      191          2,617

  Exercise of stock options         7/23/99    30,000      161         13,233

  Common stock issued to
    acquire restaurant             12/31/99   360,000        1            986
                                             --------               ---------
  Shares outstanding at
    December 31, 1999                        4,290,221              3,870,665
                                             =========             ==========

      Net earnings (loss)                                          $ (486,052)
                                                                   ==========


      Basic earnings (loss) per share                              $    (0.13)
                                                                   ==========

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:
  Shares outstanding at December 31, 1999                           3,870,665
  Stock Options                                                       618,000
  Stock Warrants                                                    1,935,000
                                                                   ----------
                                                                    6,423,665
                                                                   ==========
</TABLE>
#### Williams *v.*Gartner & Company.

Argued Oct. 29, 1907.

Appeal, No. 89, Oct. T., 1907, by Marshall McClain, Receiver, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June Term, 1906, No. 688, directing receiver to turn over assets to the Guarantee Title & Trust Company, assignee of E. D. Gartner *&*Company, in case of D. W. Williams et al. v. E. D. Gartner & Company.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

January 6, 1908:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mestrezat,

The affirmance of the decree in Marshall McClain, Receiver, v. The Pittsburg Stock Exchange, ante, p. 435, necessarily sustains the decree made in this case, and therefore this appeal is dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
#### CITIZEN’S BANK IN LIQUIDATION v. MAGEE.

No. 1310.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 6, 1934.

Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for appellant.

Ott & Johnson, of Eranklinton, for appellee.

MOUTOÑ, Judge.

This suit is brought against defendant on a promissory note of $2,000, with credits carried on its back.

The defense is want of consideration, coupled with a claim in reconvention for the two last payments carried on the back of the note, which defendant claims were applied from deposits he had in plaintiff bank and without his knowledge or consent.

The court below rejected the demand and allowed the credits claimed in reconvention by defendant.

Defendant, a man over 80 years of age, testifies that, at the request of Mr. Marcus Magee, his brother, then president of the plaintiff bank, he signed the note without reading it, as he did not then have his spectacles ; that he did not know the nature of the document he was signing or the purpose for which it was issued, and that Mr. Bour-goies, the cashier of the bank, told him his signing would not amount “to anything’’; that he did not get a penny from the bank or any other consideration for the note.

This statement by defendant is corroborated by the testimony of the cashier and defendant’s brother.

It is obvious that the note was without cause or consideration and could have no effect. O. O. arts. 1893,1896.'

This rule is universally recognized and ap- . plies to negotiable instruments between the maker and the payee.

Defendant, it is shown, did not know what or why he was signing, and there is no evidence whatsoever that his purpose was to lend his name to some other person; hence, he was not an accommodation party, as maker, drawer, or indorser. Act No. 64 of 1904, § 29, p. 152.

Even if he had been an accommodation party, as the note was never transferred to a holder for value, defendant could not be held liable on the note.

With the exception of $46.75, all the credits applied on the back of the note were taken from the deposits of the defendant in plaintiff bank and without his consent or knowledge. Evidently, defendant was entitled to the amount so applied. The $46.75 was applied with his knowledge, but, as he did not owe the note for which there was absolutely no consideration, this sum was also subject to recovery.

Even if defendant had believed himself a debtor and had allowed these credits to be carried on the note by mistake, he would have been entitled to reclaim the amount so paid. C. C. art. 2302.

*347The court correctly rejected the demand and properly allowed the sum of $200.15 on the demand in reconvention in which, it is not disputed, only $190.15 had been erroneously claimed. -

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            669 - INDX 2006-AR9 SETTLED



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JUSTIN CHARLES GREEN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 197 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.