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



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,841
<SECURITIES>                                     1,198
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          38,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,870<F1>
<BONDS>                                            524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           201
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,224
<SALES>                                          2,843
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,806
<CGS>                                            1,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (106)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    323
<INCOME-TAX>                                       213
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                110
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       110
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY UTILIZES AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET PRESENTATION. THIS FORMAT
WAS FOLLOWED BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL INVENTORY
REPRESENTS ASSETS USED BY THE COMPANY TO GENERATE CURRENT OPERATING INCOME, AND
MANAGEMENT BELIEVES THAT TO CLASSIFY ALL OF THESE COSTS AS NONCURRENT WOULD BE
MISLEADING TO THE READERS OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT
INDICATE THE LEVEL OF ASSETS EXPECTED TO BE CONVERTED INTO CASH IN THE NEXT
YEAR AS A RESULT OF THE RENTALS OF THE VIDEOCASSETTES.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Articles of Amendment
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF

                     BOULDER CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES III, INC.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Corporation Code, the undersigned
corporation adopts the following articles of amendment to its articles of
incorporation:

FIRST: The name of the corporation is BOULDER CAPITAL OPPORTUNITIES III, INC.

SECOND:  The  following  amendment  was  adopted  by  the  shareholders  of  the
corporation  on November  28,  1996,  in the manner  prescribed  by the Colorado
Corporation Code:

(1)      Subparagraph (b) of the Section A of the ARTICLE THIRD of the articles
         of the incorporation of the corporation shall be amended in its
         entirety to read as follows:

         (b) the holders of the Common Stock shall have unlimited voting rights,
         including the right to vote for the election of directors and on all
         other matters requiring stockholder action. Cumulative voting shall not
         be permitted in the election of directors or otherwise.

THIRD: The amendment was adopted by the board of directors because no shares
have been issued.

FORTH: The amendment does not provide for an exchange, reclassification or
cancellation of any issued shares of the corporation.

FIFTH: The amendment does not effect a change in the amount of stated capital of
the corporation.


DATED: December 24, 1996


BOULDER CAPITAL OPPORUNITIES III, INC.


By: /s/ Robert Soehngen
    --------------------------
    Robert Soehngen, Director
News United States Air Force
 PACAF establishes integrated air and missile defense centerPublished Nov. 17, 2014
                **JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR - HICKAM, Hawaii (AFNS) --**
                The Pacific Integrated Air and Missile Defense Center officially commenced operations here Oct. 1, culminating a vision shared by military leaders in the Asia-Pacific region to increase multinational integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) capabilities in the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) area of responsibility. 
Similar to the already established European and Central Command IAMD Centers, the Pacific center is designed to be a joint and multinational organization that educates and trains military and partner nation IAMD operators and planners.  
One of the key objectives is to incorporate IAMD professionals from partner nations into the center to improve the joint and multinational operational warfighting capability within the Pacific AOR.
"In order to succeed in IAMD, we must offset fewer resources with more innovation to develop and maintain an affordable, integrated, interdependent joint and combined approach ready to answer the nation's call -- anytime, anywhere," said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey in his Joint IAMD Vision 2020.
Once fully operational, the center's mission will be to increase joint and multinational IAMD capability, interoperability, integration and knowledge through four primary concepts:  standardizing academics and education of IAMD professionals across the Pacific; conducting IAMD training events and exercises focused on theater issues; fostering multinational partnerships through IAMD seminars, exercises and information sharing events; and disseminating joint and multinational doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures, and lessons learned.  
The commander of USPACOM has delegated operational and administrative control of the Pacific IAMD Center to the Area Air Defense Commander Gen. Lori J. Robinson, the Pacific Air Forces commander. 
Robinson has acknowledged the significance of IAMD in the Pacific theater by listing it as one of her top priorities upon taking command of PACAF, affirming she wants to "expand engagement, increase combat capability and improve warfighter integration to achieve success in IAMD."
Her initial cadre of IAMD planners oversees center operations and stands ready to improve regional security and integrated air and missile defense capabilities, as well as offset anti-access and area denial efforts through the use of integrated joint and combined operations and updated command and control.USPACOM 



PACAF 



integrated air and missile defense 



IAMD
#### Arlette DEANDRADE, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 5D10-583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 16, 2011.

Arlette Deandrade, Kissimmee, pro se.

Andrew D. Manko, of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee, and Michael K. Winston and Dean A. Morande, of Carlton Fields, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC,*36 So.3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), *review denied,*53 So.3d 1022 (Fla.2011); *see also Citibank v. Dalessio,*756 F.Supp.2d 1361 (M.D.Fla.2010).

SAWAYA, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         124,207
<SECURITIES>                                   165,001
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,955
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,495
<INVENTORY>                                     42,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               450,026
<PP&E>                                          64,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 491,785
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,841
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       377,873
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   491,785
<SALES>                                        294,021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               294,021
<CGS>                                          125,044
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,007
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,419
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,836
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,583
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        

</TABLE>
September 16, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DOV AVNI KAMINETZKY AKA DOV K. AVNI, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00450-CV V.

DOSOHS I, LTD, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on March 7, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Dov Avni Kaminetzky aka Dov K. Avni.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
583 A.2d 349

#### IN THE MATTER OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1988 AND SEPTEMBER 21, 1988 EMERGENCY REDIRECTION OF SOLID WASTE FLOW. BERGEN COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY v. SAL-CAR TRANSFER SYSTEMS, INC. AND SOUTH TRANS., INC. v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS.

March 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1
                                        
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of LHS Group Inc. of our report dated February 6, 1998, included in the 1997
Annual Report to Stockholders of LHS Group Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of LHS Group Inc.
listed in Item 14 (a).  This schedule is the responsibility of LHS Group Inc.'s
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-28985) pertaining to the LHS Group Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive
Plan of our report dated February 6, 1998 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of LHS Group Inc. incorporated herein by reference, and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1997.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 23, 1997
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90662) pertaining to the 1996Equity Incentive Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-105466) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-64024) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan and in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-80333) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc., 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 Non-employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan and Options Granted Outside AnyPlan of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-32218) pertaining to the Common Stock Issuable Upon Exercise of Options Assumed by Copper Mountain Networks, Inc., Originally Granted Under the OnPREMNetworks Corporation 1998 Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-38798) pertaining to the 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. of our reportdated February 1, 2002, with respect to the financial statements of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule data of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. for the year ended December31, 2001 listed in Item 16(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audit. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule data referred to above, whenconsidered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein. 

 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Diego, California 

February 23, 2004
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     JAPAN SHOULD OPEN ITS MARKETS

  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week a full-page advertisement appeared 
in the Washington Post that stated: ``Leading Newspapers Agree: U.S. 
Trade Sanctions On Japan Are Not The Answer.'' The Washington Post 
raked in over $25,000 on this one ad. The Wall Street Journal, another 
opponent of the sanctions, printed a similar ad, but the charges there 
were over $123,000 for a page. Here on Capitol Hill, Roll Call, a 
newspaper that goes to every congressional office, printed an ad 
opposing the sanctions that cost $6,200.
  There is big money to be made by newspapers in opposing United States 
trade sanctions on Japan and in opposing the American people in the 
process, but is it not revealing who has their hands in the honey pot.
  I would like to say who is going to stand up for the 700,000 United 
States workers employed in the auto industry, the 4 million workers who 
work in the textile, semiconductor, paint, and plaster industry and 
millions of Americans who would have jobs in the industry if Japan 
would open its markets?

                          ____________________
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 3, 2017

No. 04-17-00061-CV

Carlos Antonio RAYMOND,

Appellants

v.

Martin Joseph ROY and Pizza Ventrue of San Antonio, LLC d/b/a Papa Johns Pizza,

Appellees

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV00935

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On February 27, 2017, in this appeal from a jury trial in a civil suit, Appellant Carlos 

Antonio Raymond moved this court to appoint counsel to represent him on appeal. 

A court may appoint counsel for a pro se civil litigant “under exceptional circumstances.” 

See Gibson v. Tolbert, 102 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tex. 2003) (citing Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. 

Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Tex. 1996)); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 24.016 (West 

2004). Exceptional circumstances are “rare and unusual,” and Appellant’s motion presents no 

such circumstances. See Gibson, 102 S.W.3d at 713. 

Appellant’s motion for court-appointed appellate counsel is DENIED. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of March, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
Neer,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  that  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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



/s/  Harry M. Neer
-----------------------------------
Harry Neer, Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002


<PAGE>
583 A.2d 304

#### GREGORY H. MULLERY v. IRIS FARMS, INC. and EQUUS REALTY, INC. AND NORMAN DAUPLAISE v. JOHN DOE.

January 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Joe OLIVER, et al. v. MAGNOLIA CLINIC, et al.

No. 2010-C-2766.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

ORDER

Vacated and remanded. La. Const. Art. V, § 8(B) provides that a “majority of the judges sitting in a case must concur to render judgment.” The court of appeal’s decree does not reflect a majority judgment on the principal issues considered in the instant case.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, the ruling of the court of appeal is vacated. It is further ordered that this matter be considered *en bane*so that a decree can be rendered reflecting a majority vote on each of the issues presented.
Exhibit 3.3
                                                                     -----------

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                                  HEMASURE INC.

                         Pursuant to Section 242 of the
                    Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
                    ----------------------------------------


    HemaSure Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST: That the Board of Directors of said Corporation, pursuant to a written
action in lieu of a meeting, as filed with the minutes of the Board, duly
adopted a resolution pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware, setting forth an amendment to the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation and proposing and declaring said amendment to
be advisable. The resolution setting forth the amendment is as follows:

           RESOLVED:      That the first paragraph of Article FOURTH of the
                          Certificate of Incorporation be amended to read in its
                          entirety as follows:

           FOURTH:        The total number of shares of all classes of stock
                          which the Corporation has authority to issue is
                          36,000,000 consisting of (I) 35,000,000 shares of
                          Common Stock, $.01 par value per share ("Common
                          Stock"), and (ii) 1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock,
                          $.01 par value per share ("Preferred Stock").

SECOND: That the foregoing Amendment to the Corporation's Certificate of
Incorporation was adopted by the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares
of Common Stock at the Corporation's Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on June
10, 1999 pursuant to notice duly given.

           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, HemaSure Inc. has caused this Certificate to be
signed by James B. Murphy, its Senior Vice President, this 24th day of
September, 1999.


                                       HEMASURE INC.


                                       By:  /s/ James B. Murphy
                                           ----------------------
                                           Name:  James B. Murphy
                                           Title: Senior Vice President
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Matter of D.B.

No. 06-14-00053-CV

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 4-JV12). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 28, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit
10.20

     

    Summary of Loan
Agreement 

     

    Loans from Nansun Rural
Credit

    

       PRC
Yuhe entered into four loan agreements with Nansun Rural Credit on November 28
2005, March 14, 2007, May 17, 2007 and December 10, 2007. Interest rates
for the loan agreements range from 7.68% to 8.76% per annum. Nansun Rural Credit
also provided four loans to Taihong from November 28, 2005 to December 5, 2007
at interest rates ranging from 9.22% to 10.51% per annum. Loans form Nansun
Rural Credit had a total outstanding principal balance of $8,752,608 as of
September 30, 2008. PRC Yuhe and Taihong are obligated under these loan
agreements to pay interest monthly and repay the loans on their maturity dates
from November 28, 2008 to May 17, 2010. The loans are used for financing of
working capital. All loans are secured by the land use right and building of PRC
Yuhe and Taihong with a net book value of $12,233,921 as of September 30, 2008.
There are no material covenants, conditions or restrictions in PRC Yuhe’s loan
agreements with Nansun Rural Credit.