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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of the Company for the three month period ended March 31,
2000 and should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety
by, such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                 0001025362
<NAME>              GOLDEN QUEEN MINING CO. LTD.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                   USD

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1
<CASH>                                   941,550
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              4,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         979,697 <F1>
<PP&E>                                28,759,798 <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                           301,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        29,739,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     87,485
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                              34,155,989
<OTHER-SE>                            (5,259,801) <F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           29,739,495
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           18,448 <F4>
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          194,404 <F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                            (175,956)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.00)

<FN>
<F1> Includes prepaid expenses and other current assets of $33,361.
<F2> Consists of properties and equipment, net of depreciation of $991,885;
     mineral properties of $26,747,055; and other long-term assets of
     $1,020,858.
<F3> Consists of $5,259,801 of deficit accumulated during the development stage.
<F4> Consists of interest income of $18,110, and $338 of other income.
<F5> Consists of general and administrative expenses of $194,404.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### In Re Account of Commonwealth Trust Co., Trustee

(No. 2).

Argued Oct. 23, 1914.

Appeal, No. 219, Oct. T., 1914, by Annie E. Copeland, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1913, No. 140, in equity, dismissing exceptions to report of auditor in re account of Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh, Trustee under deed of Orlando M. Harper and Kathleen T. Harper, his wife.

Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

*517Account of Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh, trustee.

Exception to report of distribution of J. Houston Johnston, auditor.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court and in the report In re Account of Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburgh, Trustee (No. 1), 217 Pa. 508.

The court dismissed the exceptions. Annie E. Copeland appealed.

*Error assigned*was in dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report..

*Ralph Longenecker,*with him *John G. Buchanan*and *Gordon*cG *Smith,*for appellant.

*Frederic W. Miller,*for appellee.

January 2, 1915:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Potter,

It is here contended on behalf of Mrs. Annie E. Copeland, that the court below erred in not awarding to her, out of the trust fund in question, the whole of her claim. We have just filed an opinion in the appeal of Mrs. Harper from the same decree of the court below, in which we held, that the present appellant is entitled to no part of the trust fund. Her counsel seem to have overlooked the fact that the fund in which they seek to have their client share, was and is, a gift in trust, created by the donor for certain specific beneficiaries, among whom Mrs. Copeland is not to be classed. She is the holder of a second mortgage upon New York property, given to secure a loan, into the consideration for which, the trust fund here in question, did not enter. The security for the loan which she made, was the second mortgage upon the New York property, and the bond accompanying it. The gift in trust, was not within the contemplation of the parties, as forming any part of the security. Nor does her claim come within the terms *518upon which the trustee was in any event to be permitted to use the proceeds of the trust property in making payment, for its action in that respect was limited to the payment and discharge of encumbrances which were liens upon the New York property at the time when the trust deed was executed or which became such within one year from that date. Other reasons for holding that this appellant cannot participate in the trust fund are given in the preceding opinion. Counsel in this case have expended much effort, in the elaboration of well established principles of the doctrine of subrogation, which have however, no proper application to the circumstances of this case.

The assignments of error are overruled, and the decree of the court below is affirmed, except in so far as it has been modified by the opinion filed at No. 212, October Term, 1914, (In re Account of Commonwealth Trust Co., Trustee, 247 Pa. 508), in which it was held that this appellant is entitled to no part of the trust fund. This appeal is dismissed, at the cost of appellant.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60367 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:96-CV-180-B

- - - - - - - - - - February 12, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Patterson, federal prisoner #09268-042, argues that the district court erred in denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in which he alleged that there was not a sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). His motions to supplement the record and for an expedited appeal
are DENIED. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and AFFIRM the denial of the motion substantially for the reasonsNo. 97-60367 -2- stated by the district court. See United States v. Patterson , No. 3:96-CV-180-B (N.D. Miss. April 22, 1997). MOTIONS DENIED; AFFIRMED.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending July 5, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodAMERICAN STATE BANK OF GRYGLA                                                                                           * 18C
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
                                                                    ------------


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-42763) and
in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.'s 33-24444, 33-55992, 33-85908,
33-61103, 333-18363 and 333-42723) of Synbiotics Corporation of our report dated
March 18, 1998 appearing on page 17 of this Form 10-KSB.



COOPERS & LYBRAND AUDIT

Lyons, France
April 10, 1998

                                      -1-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

FRANCIS BOYD,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT ISSUER,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 635 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           236,692
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    170,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 418,511
<PP&E>                                           262,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                   156,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   720,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            278,222
<BONDS>                                          100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          10,803
<OTHER-SE>                                       431,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     720,216
<SALES>                                        2,275,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,275,356
<CGS>                                          1,330,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,330,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 861,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   83,127
<INCOME-TAX>                                       3,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               79,427
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      79,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .08
                                            


</TABLE>
#### Seamus C. Rainey, Respondent, v Salena Howell, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 449]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Skelos, J.), dated March 22, 2001, as denied her cross motion, in effect, to dismiss so much of the complaint as seeks custody of the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

*391Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court was authorized under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to “modify” a prior custody determination of the District Court, Oklahoma *(see*Domestic Relations Law former § 75-o). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the Oklahoma court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction to make a child custody determination *(see*Okla Stat Ann, tit 43, § 551-202), and that a court of this state had that jurisdiction *(see*Domestic Relations Law former § 75-d [1] [b], [d]; *People ex rel. Throneberg v Butcher,*102 AD2d 693; *see also*Domestic Relations Law § 140 [a]; § 240 [1] [a]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly determined that it was appropriate under the circumstances for it to exercise its jurisdiction *(see Matter of Persaud v Persaud,*293 AD2d 480; *see also*Domestic Relations Law former §§ 75-g, 75-h, 75-i), and that doing so was consistent with the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act *(see*28 USC § 1738A [f]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see Matter of Berlin v Berlin,*21 NY2d 371, *cert denied*393 US 840). Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify
that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |                                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ BRUCE W. TAYLOR                    
|                      |  |  |  | Bruce W. Taylor Chief Executive
Officer
|                      |  | 
|Dated: August 6, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ ROBIN VANCASTLE                    
|                      |  |  |  | Robin VanCastle Chief Financial
Officer
#### Commonwealth *v.*Snyder, Appellant.

Argued Jan. 10, 1910.

Appeal, No. 5,

May T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of Superior Court, March T., 1909, No. 13, affirming judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of Dauphin Co., Sept. Sessions, 1907, No. 239, in case of Commonwealth' of Pennsylvania v. John H. Sanderson, Joseph M. Huston, James M. Shumaker, William P. Snyder and William *347L. Mathues.

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

Affirmed.

- Appeal by defendant from a judgment and sentence upon an indictment charging conspiracy to defraud the state of Pennsylvania.

The facts and the report of this case will be found in 40 Pa. Superior Ct. 485.

*Alex. Simpson, Jr.,*and *Lyman D. Gilbert,*for appellant.

*James E. B. Cunningham,*deputy attorney general, and *D. T. Watson,*with them *John Fox Weiss,*district attorney, *John E. Fox, James Scarlet*and *M. Hampton Todd,*attorney general, for appellee.

Per Curiam,

March 7, 1910:

A majority of the court are of opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed on the opinion of the Superior Court.

Judgment affirmed.
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 Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond
      F. Kunzmann, 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
                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.






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.











/s/
      Raymond F. Kunzmann


Raymond
      F. Kunzmann


Chief
      Financial Officer


May
      9,
      2007
Exhibit 32 (a)

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORTRULE 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for theyear ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

                                           /s/ Katie S. Winchester                                           Chief Executive Officer                                            Date: March 15, 2007
### NUMBER 13

- 17

- 00 178

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

CONSTANCE ANTHONY , Appellant,

v.

SEASIDE RENTALS , Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER TO FILE APPELL ANT ' S BRIEF

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on pro se appell ant’ s fourth motion for extension of

time to file the brief. Appellant ’ s brief was originally due to be filed on March 12, 2018

, and this Court has previously granted appellant three extension s for the filing of

appellant ’ s brief in this cause. Appellant has now filed h er fourth motion requesting

additional time to file the appellate brief in this cause.2

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's fourth motion for

extension of time to file the brief and the extension s previously granted in this cause, is

of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's fourth motion for extension of time

to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor

upon the delay caused by appellant’s failure to have filed a brief in this matter.

Appellant's fourth motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby granted,

and appellant is hereby ORDERED to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before

Jul y 2, 2018 . No further extensions will be granted in this matter absent exigent

circumstances

. If appellant fails to comply with this order of the Court, the Court may dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant reasonably explains the fail ure and the

appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 5 th day of June, 2018.
#### JAMES CULNEN (APPEAL OF MILTON, McNULTY & AUGELLI), APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

Argued October 23, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

For the appellants, *Milton, McNulty & Augelli (Joseph Keane,*of counsel).

For the respondent, *Carl T. Freggens (Henry J. Sorenson,*of counsel).

*638Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Colie in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Bodine, Donges, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Richard Hernandez, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), dated April 27, 1989, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, before a different Justice, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the lineup in this case, a photograph of which we have examined, was unduly suggestive because two of the lineup participants were white while the defendant was Hispanic, and because the defendant occupied the same position in the lineup as he previously did in a photographic array, which has also been *921examined by us. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by people nearly identical in appearance *(see, People v Diaz,*138 AD2d 728; *People v Wiley,*137 AD2d 735; *People v Mattocks,*133 AD2d 89; *People v Rodriguez,*124 AD2d 611). While two of the lineup participants may have had a lighter skin tone than the defendant, they reasonably resembled him in all other physical characteristics *(see, People v Scott,*114 AD2d 915). Moreover, since there is no per se requirement regarding the numerical composition of lineups *(see, People v Rodriguez, supra,*at 612; *People v Norris,*122 AD2d 82), the remaining three fillers plus the defendant constituted a fair lineup *(see, People v Norris, supra; People v Johnson,*122 AD2d 812). Finally, we conclude that no taint resulted from the defendant occupying the same position in the lineup as he did in the photographic array, which was exhibited five weeks earlier. Brown, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) by
Beverly Hills Bancorp Inc. (the Company), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | BEVERLY HILLS BANCORP INC.             
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 7, 2005 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    LARRY B. FAIGIN                 
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Larry B. Faigin Chief Executive
Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.