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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               This schedule  contains Summary Financial  Information  extracted
               from the Balance  Sheet and Income  Statement for the nine months
               ended March 31, 2000 for Mobius Management  Systems,  Inc. and is
               qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such   Financial
               Statements.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                            0001025148
<NAME>                                           MOBIUS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       USD

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.0
<CASH>                                           28,995
<SECURITIES>                                      8,650
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                        785
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 57,960
<PP&E>                                           14,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   76,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28,342
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              2
<OTHER-SE>                                       42,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     76,661
<SALES>                                          41,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 41,728
<CGS>                                             5,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    31,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 19,722
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (13,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (4,319)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (9,472)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (9,472)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.53)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2



<TABLE>
<S>                           <C>                                  <C>                             <C>


      CERTIFICATE                                              ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF                        SHARES
      NO. 1                                                       THE STATE OF FLORIDA


                                                                  MANSUR INDUSTRIES, INC.



                                         150,000 SHARES OF SERIES D CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK $1.00 PAR VALUE




                                  This Certifies that __________________________________________________________ is the
                                  registered holder of ________________________________________________________ shares
                                                                   SERIES D CONVERTIBLE

                                                     PREFERRED STOCK OF THE ABOVE NAMED CORPORATION

                                  transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in
                                  person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.


                                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed
                                  by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed
                                  this ___TH day of August A.D. 1999




                                   --------------------------------------               --------------------------------------
                                                Secretary                                              President
                                             Pierre G. Mansur                                       Pierre G. Mansur





</TABLE>
<PAGE>   2





            FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ____ HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER
            UNTO ____________________________________________________
            __________________________________________________ SHARES
            REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE, AND DO HEREBY
            IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT
            ________________________________________________ ATTORNEY
            TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE BOOKS OF THE WITHIN NAMED
            CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

            DATED ____________________________________ 19 ______

            IN PRESENCE OF

            ______________________________  ______________________________




            THESE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT
            OF 1933 OR ANY STATE SECURITIES LAWS. THEY MAY NOT BE SOLD OR
            OFFERED FOR SALE EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION
            STATEMENT UNDER SAID ACT AND ANY APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAW OR
            AN APPLICABLE EXEMPTION FROM SUCH REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
#### Dave SINGELTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1245

AN ACT

To reform mutual aid agreements for the National Capital 

Region.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1245 ES

1 SECTION 1. REFORM OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS FOR 

2 THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION. 

3 Section 7302 of the Intelligence Reform and Ter4 rorism Prevention Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 5196 note) is 

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a)—

7 (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘, includ8 ing its agents or authorized volunteers,’’; and 

9 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘or 

10 town’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘town, 

11 or other governmental agency, governmental au12 thority, or governmental institution with the 

13 power to sue or be sued in its own name, within 

14 the National Capital Region.’’; 

15 (2) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter pre16 ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘, the Wash17 ington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the 

18 Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and 

19 any other governmental agency or authority’’; and 
3

•S 1245 ES

1 (3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘or employ2 ees’’ each place that term appears and inserting ‘‘, 

3 employees, or agents’’. 

Passed the Senate December 12, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1245

AN ACT

To reform mutual aid agreements for the National 

Capital Region.
SCWC-16-0000473 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

TED’S WIRING SERVICE, LTD., Petitioner-Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF HAWAI # I; R espondent-Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS ( CAAP-16-0000473; CIV. NO. 13-1-1910) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J . )

Petitioner-Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee Ted’s Wiring Service, Ltd.’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on April 3, 2020, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 14, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000473 14-MAY-2020 10:40 AM
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1255

DOMINIC BIANCHI, an individual and resident of Baltimore County; DAVID SNOPE, an individual and resident of Baltimore County; MICAH SCHAEFER, an individual and resident of Anne Arundel County; FIELD TRADERS LLC, A resident of Anne Arundel County; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.; SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v
. BRIAN E. FROSH, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Maryland; COL. WOODROW W. JONES, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of State Police of Maryland; R. JAY FISHER, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Baltimore County, Maryland; JI M FREDERICKS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Anne Arundel County, Maryland , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 03495

- JKB )

Submitted : September 14, 2021 Decided: September 17, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1255 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/17/2021 Pg: 1 of 32 Raymond M. DiGuiseppe , THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C. , Southport, North Carolina; Adam Kraut, FIREARMS POLICY COALTION, Sacramento , California; David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Tie rn an B. Kane, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appell ants

. Brian E. Frosh, Attorn ey General of Maryland, Robert A. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, Ryan R. Dietrich, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cir cuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1255 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/17/2021 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

. In this action, Plaintiffs sought to challenge Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act’s ban on assault weapons as violative of the Second Amendment. As Plaintiffs concede, however, their argument is squarely foreclosed by this court’s decision in Kolbe v. Hogan , 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc). “As a panel, we are not authorized to reconsider an en banc holding.” Joseph v. Angelone , 184 F.3d 320, 325 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the district

court ’s order . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
ad equately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-1255 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/17/2021 Pg: 3 of 3
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1524 

To waive time limitations specified by law in order to allow the Medal 

of Honor to be awarded to Gary Lee McKiddy, of Miamisburg, Ohio, 

for acts of valor while a helicopter crew chief and door gunner with 

the 1st Cavalry Division during the Vietnam War. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To waive time limitations specified by law in order to allow 

the Medal of Honor to be awarded to Gary Lee McKiddy, 

of Miamisburg, Ohio, for acts of valor while a helicopter 

crew chief and door gunner with the 1st Cavalry Division 

during the Vietnam War. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AWARD MEDAL OF HONOR TO 

4 GARY LEE MCKIDDY FOR VALOR DURING THE 

5 VIETNAM WAR. 

6 (a) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.—Notwith7 standing the time limitations in section 3744(b) of title 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 1524 IS

1 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation, the 

2 President is authorized and requested to award the Medal 

3 of Honor under section 3741 of such title to Gary Lee 

4 McKiddy, of Miamisburg, Ohio, for the acts of valor re5 ferred to in subsection (b). 

6 (b) ACTION DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor referred 

7 to in subsection (a) are the conspicuous acts of gallantry 

8 and intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call 

9 of duty of Gary Lee McKiddy, between October 25, 1969, 

10 and May 6, 1970, and particularly on May 6, 1970, the 

11 day he died during a combat operation in Cambodia while 

12 serving as a Specialist Four in the 1st Cavalry Division 

13 of the United States Army. 

14 (c) POSTHUMOUS AWARD.—The Medal of Honor may 

15 be awarded under this section posthumously as provided 

16 in section 3752 of title 10, United States Code. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,513
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                       460
<INVENTORY>                                     14,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,235
<PP&E>                                          22,923
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,765
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,215
<SALES>                                         22,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,283
<CGS>                                           12,109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (840)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (319)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (521)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (521)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
#### Robert DICKEY v. STATE.

8 Div. 152.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 2, 1935.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 8051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as 
a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 1150-80 Sylvan Street, 
Linden, NJ 07036, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test 
petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils 
for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 
151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to 
conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and 
receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or 
approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the 
specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries 
regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited 
or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d3e3f2d73313c3f352c1d39352e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5d6d7c59bd9d4d7ddc4f5d1ddc69bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
March 28, 2007. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled 
for March 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program 
Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 
20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. E8-2402 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
 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)

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), the
undersigned officer of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

           Dated:    November 12, 2004                 /S/ VICTOR INSETTA
                  -----------------------           --------------------------
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

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.
```
[No. 34491.

Department Two.

May 15, 1958.]

#### Lela Mae Shaw, *Appellant,*v. Douglas Ray Shaw, *Respondent.**1*

*Greenwood, Shiers & Presser,*for appellant.

*Merrill Wallace,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 325 P. (2d) 296.

Per Curiam.

Counsel for appellant wife earnestly contend that the judgment awarding custody of the children of the parties to the respondent husband should be reversed and the custody of the children should be awarded the appellant mother. We decline to agree.

Our recent opinions touching this subject were reviewed in *Siewert v. Livermore, ante p.*375, 325 P. (2d) 293, so there is no present necessity to restate the controlling factors. Our decision in that case controls the determination here.

*390The. facts are not in serious dispute. The parties have three children, who, at the time of the trial, were of the ages of ten, seven, and three years. By finding No. 13, the court found that the mother was not a fit person to have the custody.

Appellant wife testified she instituted the action because of her intention of marrying another man who had recently been divorced. The court granted the respondent husband a divorce on his cross-complaint and denied appellant a divorce.

Both parties are gainfully employed during the day. The appellant’s mother, who is devoted to the children, cared for them while their parents were at work. The grandmother testified she was willing to continue to do so. The trial court was of the opinion this arrangement should not be disturbed. We agree.

Appellant wife and the man for whose professed love she initiated this divorce action both testified that they would take the children to live with them in a new home yet to be established. The home may never be established, but if it is its character has not been determined. The welfare of the children sustains the trial court’s judgment, which is affirmed.