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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from form 10-QSB
for the three months ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          38,718
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,689,249
<ALLOWANCES>                                   190,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,056,876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,575,309
<PP&E>                                       5,892,199
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,546,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,145,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,179,125
<BONDS>                                      4,908,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,020,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,145,070
<SALES>                                      5,168,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,168,857
<CGS>                                        3,867,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,867,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,619,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (422,914)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (306,936)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (306,936)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-220-01-SM

Jean Oriol

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 20) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than June 30, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00220-SM Document 21 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: September 25, 2006 at 2:00 PM

Jury Selection: October 3, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

June 22, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Terry Ollila, Esq.

 Paul Garrity, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00220-SM Document 21 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         415,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,210,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,677,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,695,499
<PP&E>                                       1,970,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                 535,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,343,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,329,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,115
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,999,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,343,819
<SALES>                                      9,597,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,597,472
<CGS>                                        4,909,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,835,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,023
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,183,842)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,183,842)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
|   **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 Quarterly Report of Cannabis Science, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Cowan, 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, 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.

By: */s/ Richard Cowan*Richard CowanChief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 17, 2010

                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case 1:11-cv-02271-LTB Document 5 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02271-LTB Document 5 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02271-LTB Document 5 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
Order entered November 4, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00432
- CV
DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL S, Appellant
V. PAUL GREEN, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 09857 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s October 30, 2014 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file its brief by November 13, 2014

.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)





The undersigned certifies that to the best of his knowledge: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 2, 2010 (the “Annual Report”), which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.





The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any other purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.











/s/ Richard C. CogginsRichard C. CogginsChief Financial Officer


Date:  December 22, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

J.A.V.,

A MINOR CHILD.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00181-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2019DCM5797)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes that there was no error in 

the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It has been determined that Appellants are indigent for purposes of appeal; therefore, this 

Court makes no other order with respect to the payment of costs on appeal. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH OF JANUARY, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, J., and McClure, C.J. (Senior Judge)

McClure, C.J. (Senior Judge)(Sitting by Assignment)
Summary of Stock Option Grants Made to Independent Directors



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Summary of Stock Option Grants Made to Independent Directors in January, April and May of 2004. 
  
 The following non-discretionary annual grants were made under the 1999 Directors’ Stock
Option Plan using the form of 1999 Directors’ Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2002 filed on May 15, 2002. 
  

							
	 Participant

	  	Grant Date

	  	Shares

	 	 Vesting Schedule


				
	 Covert, Harold L.
	  	1/12/04	  	12,000  	 	1/48th of the shares vest monthly beginning on
2/12/04
				
	 Hedfors, Bo Christer
	  	1/12/04	  	12,000	 	1/48th of the shares vest monthly beginning on
2/12/04
				
	 Puckett, Bernard
	  	1/12/04	  	12,000	 	1/48th of the shares vest monthly beginning on
2/12/04

  
 The following grants were made under
the 1996 Stock Plan using the form of US Stock Option Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s current Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. 
  

							
	 Participant

	  	Grant Date

	  	Shares

	 	 Vesting Schedule


				
	 Denman, Kenneth D.
	  	4/23/04	  	20,000  	 	25% vest on 4/23/05 and 1/48th of the shares monthly
beginning on 5/23/05
				
	 Covert, Harold L.
	  	5/6/04	  	18,000	 	1/48th of the shares vest monthly beginning on
6/6/04
				
	 Denman, Kenneth D.
	  	5/6/04	  	30,000	 	25% vest on 5/6/05 and 1/48th of the shares monthly beginning
on 6/6/05
				
	 Hedfors, Bo Christer
	  	5/6/04	  	18,000	 	1/48th of the shares vest monthly beginning on
6/6/04
				
	 Jabbar, Masood
	  	5/6/04	  	30,000	 	1/48th of the shares vest monthly beginning on
6/6/04
				
	 Puckett, Bernard
	  	5/6/04	  	18,000	 	1/48th of the shares vest monthly beginning on
6/6/04
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-42-01-SM

Christopher Bosch

O R D E R

Defendant Bosch’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 24). No further continuances will be granted absent

extraordinary circumstances.

 Trial has been rescheduled for the December 2008 trial period. 

Defendant Bosch has filed a waiver of speedy trial.

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: November 19, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: December 2, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00042-SM Document 27 Filed 10/01/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 1, 2008

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00042-SM Document 27 Filed 10/01/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jillian Trinidad

v. Case No. 09-cv-74-PB

Bowe Bell & Howell Co., Inc.

O R D E R

Plaintiff has failed to establish that state law, the

federal rules of civil procedure, or the due process clause

entitle her to have a DeBenedetto notice stricken if it is not

pleaded with the specificity required of a third party complaint.

Nevertheless, using my inherent power to supervise this

litigation, I require the defendant to provide a revised notice

within 14 days: 

(1) identifying the entity that is the subject of the

 notice (including any information in the defendant's

 possession that would allow the plaintiff to make

service on the entity);

(2) identifying the legal theories under which the

defendant contends the entity may be liable; and 

(3) identifying the material facts of which the defendant

is aware that support a potential claim against the

entity. 

Case 1:09-cv-00074-PB Document 14 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 2
Plaintiff shall be allowed to conduct discovery concerning

the DeBenedetto issue (and shall be entitled to a reasonable

extension of discovery deadlines if needed to conduct discovery).

If plaintiff contends that the defendant cannot satisfy its

burden of proof with respect to the DeBenedetto issue, she may

move for partial summary judgement on the issue. 

The Motion to Strike Late DeBenedetto Disclosure (Doc. No.

9) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 10, 2009

cc: Christopher Flanagan, Esq.

Jeffrey B. Osburn, Esq.

David S.V. Shirley, Esq.

 

Case 1:09-cv-00074-PB Document 14 Filed 12/10/09 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,003
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,147
<INVENTORY>                                     13,687
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,884
<PP&E>                                         345,412
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 759,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,968
<BONDS>                                        305,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     325,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   759,232
<SALES>                                        394,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               394,044
<CGS>                                          321,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                66,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,741)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        68
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,809)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,809)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Mary R. Bruno, Appellant, v Lawrence Bruno et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 433]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered October 22, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion to vacate their default in answering.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

In support of their motion to vacate their default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), the defendants failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defense to the action *(see Kolajo v City of New York,*248 AD2d 512; *Roussodimou v Zafiriadis,*238 AD2d 568). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in granting such relief.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit *(see Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp.,*260 AD2d 457; *Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232*AD2d 382; *Brosnan v Behette,*186 AD2d 165; *Modern Indus. Bank v Grossman,*180 Misc 415; *Lang v Lang,*176 Misc 213). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Smith and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
      32.1






CERTIFICATION






Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted), the undersigned, Charles J. Drake, Chairman of the Board and Chief
      Executive Officer of Integral Vision, Inc. (the *“Company”* ),
      hereby
      certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:






1. **** The
      Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005
      (the *“Periodic
      Report”* ),
      to
      which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and






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




Date: March
                31, 2006
              By:
              /S/ Charles
                J. DrakeCharles
                  J. Drake
                Chairman of the Board and
                Chief Executive
                  Officer


42
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

denied

NO. 14-0426

IN THE INTEREST OF W.R.B. AND

B.K.B., CHILDREN §

§

§

§

§

§ Dallas County,

5th District.

January 30, 2015

Petitioner 's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

July 10, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, IN THE INTEREST OF W.R.B. AND B.K.B.,

CHILDREN, pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 10th day of July, 2015

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
#### Somerset Colliery Company *v.*John, Appellant.

*Mortgage*— Costs—Appeal—Reversal *of judgment.*

Where on a trial of a scire facias sur mortgage the plaintiff recovers less than the amount claimed, and only the amount tendered, and the judgment is reversed on appeal by the plaintiff, the defendant on an appeal from the same judgment cannot have the question considered as to his liability for interest, costs and attorney’s commissions. This liability depends on the verdict on the retrial of the case.

Argued Jan. 17, 1910.

Appeal, No. 23,

Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Somerset Co., Feb. T., 1905, No. 18, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Somerset Colliery Company v. A. F. John.

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

Appeal dismissed.

Scire facias sur mortgage.

The facts appear by the report of Somerset Colliery Co., Appellant, v. John, ante, p. 228.

*Error assigned*was as follows: 1. The court erred in making the following order: And now, July 21, 1909, after consideration thereof it is ordered and directed that the rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered in above case without costs, be discharged; it is further ordered and directed that the rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered without attorney’s commission, be discharged.

*W. H. Ruppel,*with him *W. H. Koontz*and *J. G. Ogle,*for appellant.

*H. Gordon McCouch, L. C. Colburn*and *Ernest O. Kooser,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

February 14, 1910:

On the appeal of the plaintiff in this case we have just reversed the judgment below and ordered a new trial. Whether *235this appellant will ultimately be liable for interest, costs and attorney’s commission is not now to be decided, for the action is still pending and the amount of the verdict is not to be anticipated.

Appeal dismissed.