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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                         975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR ACCOMPANYING
NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Robert N. Wildrick, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge: 

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the issuer. 

 
| June 6, 2005 | /s/ ROBERT N. WILDRICK  |
|-------------------|-------------------------|
|              | Robert N. Wildrick      |
|              | Chief Executive Officer |
|              |                    |

 

1

----
#### North Side St. R’y Co. v. Want & Co.

(No. 3547.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Templeton & Carter,- counsel for appellant.

Prank M. Marple, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 167. *Pleadings; amendment of, on appeal from, justice's to county court.*This suit was instituted in a justice’s court by appellees to recover from appellant damages occasioned by a collision of one of its cars with a horse and wagon. There was a judgment for plaintiffs in justice’s court. Appeal therefrom by the railway company to county court. In the latter court the plaintiffs amended their pleadings, and claimed, as additional damages, the full value of the horse which had died, and other expenses which had accrued in the premises since the said trial in the justice’s court. This amendment was proper, and did not set up a new cause of action [2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 818, 835], and the court did not err in overruling defendant’s exceptions to the same.

§ 168. *Street car; negligence in operating not to be inferred from mere fact that there had been a collision.*In this case it devolved upon the plaintiffs to prove negligence on the part of the railway company in order to entitle them to recover. In our opinion the evidence wholly fails to establish any such negligence. The car, at the time of the accident, was running, for aught that appears, at its usual rate of speed on its track. It is. not shown that the street-car driver saw, or could have seen, the danger of a collision, nor that he could possibly have averted it after it became apparent. It occurs to us that if any negligence be shown at all, it was upon the part of the driver of the horse and wagon, whose conduct in pulling his horse out from the sidewalk towards the *238electric street car caused the witness, Scott, who testified for plaintiffs, to call the attention of a by-stander to the danger of a collision. Under the facts, the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that they were not authorized to infer negligence on the part of the railway company from the mere fact that there had been á collision. [2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 421; Railway Co. v. Faber, *77*Tex. 153.] We are of opinion the verdict and judgment are not supported by, but are against, the law and the evidence.

November 12, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Financial Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in 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; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting: and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005                
|                                     
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 455 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to transport individuals to and from facilities of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs in connection with rehabilitation, counseling, examination, treatment, and care, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2013 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. BEGICH, and Mr. MORAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to transport individuals 

to and from facilities of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs in connection with rehabilitation, counseling, examination, treatment, and care, 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, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 455 IS

1 SECTION 1. TRANSPORTATION OF INDIVIDUALS TO AND 

2 FROM FACILITIES OF DEPARTMENT OF VET3 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 111 the 

6 following new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 111A. Transportation of individuals to and from 

8 Department facilities 

9 ‘‘(a) TRANSPORTATION BY SECRETARY.—The Sec10 retary may transport any person to or from a Department 

11 facility or other place in connection with vocational reha12 bilitation, counseling required by the Secretary pursuant 

13 to chapter 34 or 35 of this title, or for the purpose of 

14 examination, treatment, or care.’’. 

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (h) of 

16 section 111 of such title is— 

17 (1) transferred to section 111A of such title, as 

18 added by subsection (a); 

19 (2) redesignated as subsection (b); 

20 (3) inserted after subsection (a) of such section; 

21 and 

22 (4) amended by inserting ‘‘TRANSPORTATION

23 BY THIRD-PARTIES.—’’ before ‘‘The Secretary’’. 

24 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

25 at the beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 455 IS

1 inserting after the item relating to section 111 the fol2 lowing new item: 

‘‘111A. Transportation of individuals to and from Department facilities.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Yony DUARTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-3332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 2, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 2011.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Colby Nicole Ferris, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Yony Duarte, Graceville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See State v. Crider,*625 So.2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

MONACO, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 31 , 2023.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00731

- CV

IN RE WILMA REYNOLDS AND CARL GORDON , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 48170



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 5, 2023 , relator s Wilma Reynolds and Carl Gordon filed a petition
for writ of m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this court to compel the Honorable C.G. Dibrell, visiting judge of the 300th District Court of Brazoria County
, to vacate his September 11, 2023 order dismissing the underlying case and October 6, 2023 order granting real parties in interest ’s request for attorney’s fees.2 Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny
relators’ amended motion for emer gency stay.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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  Trans  Energy,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2006,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
James K. Abcouwer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.


/s/   JAMES K. ABCOUWER
-----------------------------
James K. Abcouwer
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2007

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The Chair would remind Members 
that they must address their remarks to the Chair and not address their 
remarks to the President.

                          ____________________
```
#### Dewayne R. McLENDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D11-316.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 8, 2011.

Dewayne R. McLendon, Sneads, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

GRIFFIN, J.

Dewayne R. McLendon [“McLendon”] appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion in which he argued that sentences he received in Hernando County are illegal.

On October 23, 2007, the Defendant pled no contest to two counts of uttering a forged check and received two concurrent *388terms of four years’ incarceration in Her-nando County.1 Thirteen days later, he was sentenced in Hillsborough County for violation of probation.

On December 8, 2010, McLendon filed the instant rule 3.800(a) motion, asserting that his Hillsborough and his Her-nando County sentences are being applied consecutively by the Florida Department of Corrections in violation of his plea agreement. He contends that it was a condition of his plea agreement that his concurrent four-year sentences in Hernan-do County were to run concurrently with the Hillsborough sentence. This claim is not cognizable under rule 8.800(a) because a breach of a plea agreement does not make a sentence illegal. Claims of a plea agreement violation must be addressed by other procedural means, and it appears the time has passed for this to be done.

McLendon has, however, also asserted that the trial court announced at sentencing that the Hernando sentences were to be concurrent with the Hillsborough sentence. If such were indeed a part of the court’s sentence, we see no reason why the sentence should not be calculated as the Hernando County court intended.

In denying McLendon’s motion, on the ground that it was “illogical,” the trial court remarked in its order that the “record is of no avail” to McLendon. The court did not, however, attach any portion of it — not the plea agreement, the sentencing hearing, or the judgment and sentence. Nevertheless, as we explained in *Beard, v. State,*27 So.3d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), in order for a rule 3.800(a) movant to comply with his special duty to demonstrate entitlement to relief *on the face of the record,*the lack of a transcript of the sentencing hearing is a gap that must be filled by the movant.

As in *Beard,*because the record before us does not contain the transcript of the sentencing hearing, nor was it attached to McLendon’s motion or the trial court’s order, we must remand the case to the trial court to determine if the transcript is in the record. If it is, the trial court shall either grant the relief requested or attach the portions of the sentencing transcript that refute McLendon’s claim. If the transcript is not in the record, McLendon’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to file an amended motion with the sentencing transcript and other necessary documents attached.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

1

. McLendon did not appeal, nor has he sought timely rule 3.850 relief.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
E. Mead, 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:

         (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.



Dated:  March 31, 2003                              /s/ ROBERT E. MEAD
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    Robert E. Mead



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Silverleaf
Resorts, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### Mo. Pac. R’y Co. v. J. L. Lybrand.

(No. 2654.)

Appeal from Van Zandt County.

Whitaker & Bonner, counsel for appellants.

Sim Allen and Kearby & McOhesney, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ *337Overcharge on freight; statute construed; case stated.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for the statutory penalty of $500 for an alleged overcharge on freight. In his petition appellee alleged that the freight transported by appellant weighed four thousand seven hundred pounds, and that it was transported *406sixty-five miles, and that appellant charged $18 freight charges. Appellant interposed a general demurrer to the petition, which was overruled, and this action of the court is assigned as error. Held, that said demurrer should have been sustained, as the petition shows no cause of- action. Appellant had the right to charge as much as fifty cents per hundred for carrying said freight any distance less than one hundred miles. [R. S. art. 4757; Murray v. R’y Co. 63 Tex. 407; 3 App. C. C. § 80.]

November 26, 1887.

Reversed and dismissed.
#### Lauren SELF, Individually and On Behalf of Her Minor Son, Trent Ledet v. CHICK-FIL-A, INC. and Shannon Lewis.

No. 2011-C-0174.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Self, Lauren et al.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 149,383; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1070.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 23.2 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-59307, 333-35060, 333-67520 and 333-108868) pertaining to the 1997 StockOption Plan of Notify Technology Corporation and the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-60552 and 333-71940) of Notify Technology Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated October 31, 2002, with respect to the financialstatements of Notify Technology Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended September 30, 2002. 

 

Ernst & Young LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

December 22, 2003
News United States Air Force
 AF announces OTS rated selection board resultsPublished March 23, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force Recruiting Service
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                A total of 228 men and women from across America have earned an opportunity to become Air Force leaders following their selection for an officer's commission, officials announced March 20.Air Force Recruiting Service officials considered 453 applications as part of the Officer Training School Rated Selection Board 15OT01. With the board's selection rate of 50.33 percent, 228 applicants were selected to serve as Air Force officers. Also, of the 228 selected, 50 enlisted members earned the chance to attend OTS and trade their stripes for gold bars as second lieutenants.To see the full list of selectees – click hereAs part of the selection process, board members review both objective and subjective factors.Objectively, the board considers each applicant's academic discipline, grade point average and Air Force Officer Qualifying Test scores.Subjectively, board members evaluate work experience, accomplishments, adaptability, character, leadership ability, potential for future growth and other recommendations. For active-duty enlisted members, performance reports and commanders' recommendations are also evaluated.Three Air Force colonels review every application. The selection process is similar to an Air Force officer promotion board. No single factor leads to an individual's selection or non-selection, according to OTS selection officials.Candidates selected can expect to attend OTS at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, in 2016.For more information concerning OTS and the application process, active-duty members should visit the officer training website on the Air Force Portal; civilians should contact the nearest Air Force recruiter.officer 



Officer Training School 



AFRS 



recruiting 



Maxwell AFB 



AETC 



OTS