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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES F4 AND F5 OF THE COMPANY'S 10K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000719494
<NAME> INRAD, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         209,142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  661,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,546,541
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,647,018
<PP&E>                                       5,121,379
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,124,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,093,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          973,734
<BONDS>                                      2,257,153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,216
<OTHER-SE>                                     841,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,093,459
<SALES>                                      5,419,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,419,429
<CGS>                                        4,302,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,302,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             256,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (572,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (572,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (572,121)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William R. NICHOLS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 25705.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Dec. 6, 1971.

R. H. Mos, Jr., Farley & Mos, Farley, for defendant-appellant.

Abe Shafer, Platte City, for plaintiff-respondent.

DIXON, Commissioner.

Defendant appeals his conviction in a jury waived case. The charge was driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. We set aside the submission of this case and dismiss the appeal since we are without jurisdiction. The trial was held September 17, 1970; at the conclusion of the evidence, the following appears in the transcript:

> “THE COURT: * * * It is the finding of the court that the defendant *55is guilty as charged in the information of driving while intoxicated, and is fined $100.00 and costs.

> MR. BABER: We ask ten days to file motion for new trial.

> THE COURT: Granted.”

On Monday, September 28th, a motion was filed denominated “MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT AND FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL.” No ruling of the court on this motion appears. Ninety-four days later appellant filed notice of appeal “from the judgment of conviction entered” the 17th day of September, 1970.

If the remark of the court as to the punishment assessed be taken as the judgment, it is premature and void as being made prior to the filing of the motion for new trial. State v. Grant, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 799, 803. V.A.M.R. 27.20. No other judgment appearing, we can only conclude no valid final judgment has been entered from which a proper appeal might be taken.

The trial court retains jurisdiction to enter such a final judgment, and the appeal may then be prosecuted. State v. Chase, Mo., 415 S.W.2d 731.

Submission of this cause is set aside and appeal dismissed.

MAUGHMER, C, concurs.

PER CURIAM:

The foregoing opinion of DIXON, C., is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

All concur.
**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 Energroup Technologies Corp.,(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), I(We), Stephen R. Fry, President and Director and Thomas J. Howells, Secretary and Director, 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| *Date:*** | *05/11/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/ Stephen R. Fry***                                   |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Stephen R. Fry, President and Director***               |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | * *                                                 |
| *Date:*** | *05/11/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Thomas J. Howells***                                 |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Thomas J. Howells, Secretary, Treasurer and Director*** |
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:  March 31, 2008
    /s/ James G. PetcoffJames G. Petcoff, Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, John S. Chen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sybase, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: November 8, 2005       /s/ JOHN S. CHEN
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 12, 2009*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.215 Bank Loans Not Elsewhere Classified** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Section 906 CEO & CFO CertificationsEX-32 7 dex32.htm SECTION 906 CEO & CFO
 CERTIFICATIONS
 Exhibit 32.1
 
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, DC
 
 The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pilot
 Financial, Inc., Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
 Quarterly Report of Pilot Financial, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal
 year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of section
 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
 contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pilot Financial,
 Inc.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
 provided to Pilot Financial, Inc. and will be retained by Pilot
 Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
 Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 /s/ William Baumgardner
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 Date: December 31, 2004
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 7, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.217 Total Mortgages** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 19, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01284-CV IN RE WAYNE WARSHAWSKY, Relator Original Proceeding from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-53388-2010 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Schenck Relator Wayne Warshawsky sought manda mus relief after the trial court dissolved a temporary restraining that kept a child in relator’s custody. We stayed the dissolution order based on allegations that the child’s emotional state had deteriorated under the care of his mother, real party in interest Ashley Austin. Austin has moved to lift the stay, arguing that th e temporary restraining order expired by operation of law and that any controversy over th e now-expired temporary restraining order was moot. In recent cases, we have c onsistently held that any challenge to the dissolution of a temporary restraining order becomes moot with the expiration of the order by its own terms. See In re Fartook , No. 05-17-01081-CV, 2017 WL 4117178, at *1–2– (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 18, 2017, orig . proceeding) (mem. op.) (“Relator’s complaints regarding the order dissolving the temporary restrain ing order are moot because the temporary restra ining order would ha ve automatically dissolved before relator filed this original proceeding.”); Wells v. May , No. 05-12-01100-CV, 2014 WL 1018135, at *2 (Tex. App. —Dallas Feb. 12, 2014, no pe t.) (mem. op.) (holding complaint concerning temporary restraini ng order dissolution to be moot because “[b]y its terms, the temporary restraining order would have expired fourteen days after it was entered”); see also Fisher v. Cooke , No. 05-21-00243-CV, 2022 WL 3584631, at *4 (Tex. App.—D allas Aug. 22, 2022, no pe t.) (mem. op.) (holding a complaint regarding the entry of a temporary restraining or der to be moot “because a temporary restraining order must expire by its terms within fourteen days after it is signed”). By its terms, the temporary restraining order here was set to be dissolved (1) upon further order of the court or (2) when “it expires by opera tion of law.” The operation of law would have br ought the temporary restrain ing order to an end after 14 days. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 680. We did not stay the operation of rule 680, under which the 14-day period was set to expire on Friday December 2, 2022. Because the temporary restraining or der expired by its own terms, any controversy over the trial court’ s dissolution order is now moot.–3– Further, relator’s petition contains se nsitive information including the full name of a minor, in violation of the Texas Rules of Appe llate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we lift our stay, strike relator’s mandamus petition, and dismiss this original proceeding.

221284F.P05 /David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14/15d-14(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Timothy D. Hart, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
on Form 10-K of First National Master Note Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange
Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in
preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and
their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by U.S. Bank National Association.



---

|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                          
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Timothy D. Hart                                                                                                                      
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Timothy D. Hart, Senior Vice President, First National Bank of Omaha (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the servicer)

[Signature page to Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14/15d-14(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934]
#### Evelyn Goldstock et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Gertrude Kramer et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

April 11, 1957.

*9
      *E. Edan Spencer*and *Robert D. Foglia*for defendants.

*Harry H. Lipsig, Leonard H. Bernstein, Emil Reich*and *Gordon Zimmerman*for plaintiffs.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

This is a negligence action in which the plaintiffs have sued the defendants Kramer. The defendants have moved for leave to serve a supplemental answer. They seek to interpose an alleged partial defense based, in substance, upon the following allegations: While the plaintiffs were passengers in the Kramer vehicle as it traveled on a New Jersey highway, there was a collision with another vehicle operated by one Goerke. The plaintiffs were injured. They sued the Kramers in this action in New York; and they sued the Kramers and Goerke in the New Jersey court. The several defendants in the New Jersey action interposed cross claims against each other for contribution under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law of that State (Judgment against Joint Tortfeasor; Contribution, tit. 2A, ch. 53A, § 3 [L. 1952, ch. 335, p. 1075, § 3]). The plaintiffs and Goerke settled the New Jersey action as between them for $6,500. The New Jersey court granted the plaintiffs leave to discontinue the suit there, without prejudice to their rights to continue the pending action here, and ordered that the respective cross claims by the defendants against each other for contribution under the New Jersey statute be stayed until the disposition of the pending action.

I recognize that, usually, the legal merits of a proposed defense would not be passed upon on an application for leave to interpose it. (Carmody on New York Practice, 7th [Forkosch] ed., § 380, p. 392.) That would normally await a subsequent direct attack. But, where — as I think is the case here — the new pleading is so patently unnecessary and so plainly insufficient, I see no reason to allow it and thus to require a motion to strike, which can but be granted, thus leaving the pleadings as they were. (Prashker on New York Practice [3d ed.], §§ 196, 200, pp. 350, 360.)

In my view, the defense sought to be asserted is clearly insufficient. *Vis-a-vis*the plaintiffs, on the one hand, evidence of the amount of the settlement obtained by them in New Jersey is competent, even under the present general denial, for the purpose of diminishing the amount of their recovery here *(Ammerman*v. *Utilities Oil Corp.,*222 App. Div. 481). *10On the other hand, the right of contribution between the defendants in the New Jersey action cannot be determined unless and until the plaintiffs procure a judgment in the pending action; and when and after that eventuality occurs, the present defendants have a remedy against the other joint tortfeasor by such further proceedings as are permitted under the New Jersey act in that State, the issue as to which was expressly reserved pursuant to the order entered in that action.

The motion for leave to serve the supplemental answer is denied, and an order has been signed accordingly.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 9, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.107 Rest of the World** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00266 -CV M unso n P ar k, Lt d., App e lla nt

v. City of Austin , Texas, Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. D-1- GN-06- 0011 96, H ONO RAB LE LORA J. LIVINGSTO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant Munson P ark, Ltd. no longe r wishes to pursue its appeal a nd has filed a motion to di smiss that appe llee City of Austin, Texas does not oppose. We grant the motion and dismiss the appe al. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: January

8, 2009
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1633 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 

study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including the battlefield and related sites of the Battle of Shepherdstown in Shepherdstown, 

West Virginia, as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park or 

Antietam National Battlefield, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 15, 2007 

Mr. BYRD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

special resource study to determine the suitability and 

feasibility of including the battlefield and related sites 

of the Battle of Shepherdstown in Shepherdstown, West 

Virginia, as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical 

Park or Antietam National Battlefield, and for other 

purposes. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1633 IS

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM SPECIAL RESOURCE 

2 STUDY, SHEPHERDSTOWN BATTLEFIELD, 

3 WEST VIRGINIA. 

4 (a) SPECIAL RESOURCES STUDY.—The Secretary of 

5 the Interior (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’) 

6 shall conduct a special resource study relating to the Bat7 tle of Shepherdstown in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, to 

8 evaluate— 

9 (1) the national significance of the 

10 Shepherdstown battlefield and sites relating to the 

11 Shepherdstown battlefield; and 

12 (2) the suitability and feasibility of adding the 

13 Shepherdstown battlefield and sites relating to the 

14 Shepherdstown battlefield as part of— 

15 (A) Harpers Ferry National Historical 

16 Park; or 

17 (B) Antietam National Battlefield. 

18 (b) CRITERIA.—In conducting the study authorized 

19 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the criteria 

20 for the study of areas for potential inclusion in the Na21 tional Park System contained in section 8(a) of Public 

22 Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(a)). 

23 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

24 on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, 

25 the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy 

26 and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 1633 IS

1 on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a 

2 report containing the findings, conclusions, and rec3 ommendations of the study conducted under subsection 

4 (a). 

5 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

6 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec7 essary to carry out this section. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS