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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,328
<SECURITIES>                                       448
<RECEIVABLES>                                      301
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (12)
<INVENTORY>                                        571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,781
<PP&E>                                           1,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,097)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              259
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,117
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,323)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,053
<SALES>                                          3,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,299
<CGS>                                            2,205
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (617)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (182)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (799)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | 5/25/10 |   |                    |   |
|--------|---------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |    |   |                    |   |
|   |    |   | /s/ JOHN R. REGAZZI     |   |
|   |    |   | John R. Regazzi         |   |
|   |    |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

----

----
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 iGATE Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Sunil Wadhwani, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2006                                                                       
|                                                                                           
|/S/    SUNIL
WADHWANI                                                                      
|Sunil Wadhwani Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer, and
Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02545-KLM

SAMMY KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON TRUCKING, INC., and

SARAH GRAHAM,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Amend

Scheduling Order to Extend Deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosures to December

14, 2012 [Docket No. 36; Filed October 16, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#36] is GRANTED. The Scheduling

Order entered on July 5, 2012 [#27] is modified to extend the following deadline:

• Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline December 14, 2012

Dated: October 22, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02545-KLM Document 37 Filed 10/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, John R. Regazzi, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Giga-tronics, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: 5/30/06       /s/ JOHN R. REGAZZI         John R. Regazzi    Chief Executive Officer  
46
|Skip to ContentRelease Date: June 9, 2005Release dates | 
Coded tables |
Historical dataCurrent release | Screen reader | PDF (450 KB)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Z.1 Release                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|Complete file      PDF (450 KB)

Summary statistics and table of contents      PDF (83 KB) | CSV (9 KB)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables      PDF (12 KB) | CSV (7 KB)
Flows tables      PDF (132 KB) | CSV (127 KB)
Level tables      PDF (145 KB) | CSV (112 KB)
Balance sheet tables      PDF(22 KB) | CSV (13 KB)
Supplementary tables      PDF (46 KB) | CSV (24 KB)These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web SiteRelease dates | 
Coded tables |
Historical dataCurrent release | 
 Screen reader | PDF (450 KB)

Statistical releasesHome |
Economic research and dataAccessibility | 
Contact Us
Last update: June 9, 2005
|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
# **EXHIBIT 99.1**

# ** **

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

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Arctic Cat Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Companyfor the annual period ended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff uponrequest.

 
| Date: June 27, 2003 |                                   |   |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                |                                   |   |
|                | /s/ Christopher A.  Twomey             |   |
|                | Christopher A. Twomey,                 |   |
|                | President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02541-BNB

CECIL BYNUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, MUNICIPALITY,

MAYOR MICHAEL HANCOCK,

KERI JOHNSON

DAVID RYAN,

A.P. RICHMOND,

J. CASIAS,

J. ANDREWS,

ROBERT HART, and

J. SIMMONS,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Cecil Bynum, is in the custody of the Colorado Department of

Corrections and currently is incarcerated at Kit Carson Correctional Center in

Burlington, Colorado. Mr. Bynum, acting pro se, initiated this action by filing a pleading

titled “Motion for Review of Trial Courts and Court of Appeals Discison [sic] Pursuant to

24-10-109, C/.R.S. and Section 13-80-103” and a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for

Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In an order entered on October 5,

2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland instructed Mr. Bynum to cure a certain

deficiency in his pleading. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland directed Mr. Bynum to

submit his claims on a Court-approved form used in filing prisoner actions and

instructed him to obtain the correct form from the Court’s website with the help from his

case manager or the facility’s legal assistant.

Case 1:11-cv-02541-LTB Document 10 Filed 11/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Magistrate Judge Boland warned Mr. Bynum that the action would be dismissed

without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiency within thirty days. On November

3, 2011, Mr. Bynum filed a document titled “Civil Action Complaint Pursuant to 24-10-

109, and Pursuant to 29-5-111.” Mr. Bynum did not submit his claims on a Courtapproved form. The action, therefore, will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

cure the deficiency. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure the deficiency and for failure to

prosecute.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of November , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02541-LTB Document 10 Filed 11/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02515-RPM

YOLANDA HANSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, 4th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PROBATION DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant. 

 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on January 10, 2012, at 11:30 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on January 5, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: November 14th, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02515-RPM Document 8 Filed 11/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### MARTIN v. MARTIN.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the 
Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards will be held on 
October 27-28, 2008, in room 648 at 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, The meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each 
day. The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs on adverse health effects that may be associated 
with exposure to ionizing radiation, and to make recommendations on 
proposed standards and guidelines regarding VA benefit claims based 
upon exposure to ionizing radiation.
    The major items on the agenda will be discussions of medical and 
scientific papers concerning the health effects of exposure to ionizing 
radiation. On the basis of the discussions, the Committee may make 
recommendations to the Secretary concerning the relationship of certain 
diseases exposured to ionizing radiation. The October 28 session will 
include planning for future Committee activities and assignment of 
tasks among members.
    An open forum for verbal statements from the public will be 
available for 30 minutes in the afternoon each day. People wishing to 
make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a 
first-come, first-served basis and will be provided three minutes per 
statement.
    Members of the public wishing to attend should contact Ms. Bernice 
Green at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Compensation and Pension 
Service, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, by phone at 
(202) 461-9723, or by fax at (202) 275-1728. Individuals should submit 
written questions or prepared statements for the Committee's review to 
Ms. Green at least five days prior to the meeting. The Committee may 
ask those who submit material for clarification prior to its 
consideration.

    Dated: September 29, 2008.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-23439 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
#### Rhodes, Appellant, *v.*Steel Car Forge Company.

*Negligence*— Master *and servant*— Fall *of material*— Unexplained *accident*— N *onsuit.*

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the fall upon plaintiff of steel yokes piled in defendant’s foundry, where he was working, a nonsuit was properly entered, where the evidence failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant that could have caused the accident.

Argued Oct. 7, 1914.

Appeal, No. 225, Oct. T., 1914, by the plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lawrence Co., Sept. T., 1913, No. 77, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of William A. Rhodes v. The Steel Car Forge Company.

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

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Porter, P. J.

From the record it appeared that plaintiff was employed in a foundry and operated a drill press for drilling holes in steel plates or yokes. There were two piles of yokes laid in the usual manner behind the plaintiff, the piles being from two to three feet apart. As plaintiff was removing a yoke from one of said piles, the *126other pile fell upon plaintiff causing the injuries complained of. There was evidence that the fall might have been caused by a fellow workman who had thrown a yoke down hard upon the pile which fell.

The trial judge entered a compulsory nonsuit which the court in banc subsequently refused to take off. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing to take off the nonsuit.

*A. W. Gardner*and *W. D. Wallace,*with them *Charles E. Mehard,*for appellant.

*J. N. Martin,*of *Martin & Martin,*for appellee.

January 2, 1915:

Per Curiam,

The appellant, while in the employ of the appellee, was injured by the falling of a pile of yokes. It does not clearly appear what caused them to fall. That they fell in coñsequence of the failure of the defendant company to do anything it should have done to have prevented their falling nowhere appears. From all that can be gathered from the evidence, their falling was a pure accident, involving no breach of duty on the part of the defendant company to its injured employee. The non-suit having been properly entered for the reason that no negligence had been shown, cannot be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Maritza B. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abused. Clifford B. et al., Appellants, v Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Respondent.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory D. Fields, J.), entered on or about October 15, 1988, to the extent the order denied appellants’ motion to vacate the order of protection previously entered pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At the conclusion of fact-finding and dispositional hearings in a child abuse proceeding, a five-year order of protection was entered against appellants on October 8, 1986. No appeal was taken from either the order of disposition or the order of protection. In the instant application, appellants moved to vacate the order of protection on the ground that it exceeded the 18-month duration of the dispositional order. Contrary to appellants’ contentions, at the time the order was entered the court had the discretion to issue orders of protection whose duration exceeded the statutory 18-month limit of a dispositional order *(Matter of Erin G.,*139 AD2d 737, 739-740). Since the dispositional order has expired, any challenge to said order is moot *(Matter of Karen Lee M.,*33 AD2d 877). Moreover, appellants having failed to timely appeal from said order, any procedural defects are not properly before this court.

The foregoing is without prejudice to any further application to the trial court which appellants may be advised to bring with respect to substituting an appropriate supervising party in the stipulation providing for supervised visitation by appellants. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.