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
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,486,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,762,573
<PP&E>                                       9,581,845
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,561,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,794,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,150,174
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,578
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,913,058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,794,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,402,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             156,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,491,012)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,491,012)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,491,012)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     ($.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.15)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PointTherapeutics, Inc. (“Point”) for the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Kiepert, Jr., Chief ExecutiveOfficer 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 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 conditions and results of operations of Point.

Dated: August 8, 2006 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Point Therapeutics, Inc.(“Point”) for the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard N. Small, Chief Financial 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 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 conditions and results of operations of Point. 

Dated: August 8, 2006 

 

A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906 has been providedto Point Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Point Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6195

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus GEORGE CHAMBERS, a/k/a Dave, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:94-cr-00089-JRS) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 26, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: George Chambers seeks to appeal the district court’s orders construing his petition for writ of audita querela and motion for reconsideration as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions, and dismissing them on that basis. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chambers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Chambers’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Chambers’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Ron WOLTEN and Karin Wolten, Appellants, v. 3P DELIVERY, INC., a foreign corporation and Trevor Terry, Appellees.

No. 4D10-1438.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 18, 2011.

Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Benjamin Y. Saxon, II of Saxon & Cha-khtoura, P.A., Melbourne, for appellants.

John S. Penton, Jr. and Paula J. Phillips of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Cox v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.,*360 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

WARNER, POLEN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
This contract was a verbal contract  between the Security  Project Manager of U.
S. Satellite and the President of Downstream,  doing business as, SSI - Security
Solutions  Incorporated,  that was outlined and  confirmed in a letter sent from
SSI to the  Project  Manager  of U. S.  Satellite.  The  letter  was  dated  and
addressed to the Security Project Manager of U. S. Satellite and read:

         Please have all  equipment  to be installed in the Osco Drug Store #813
in South Bend, IN shipped to our affiliate in that area:

                             American Eagle Security
                                Attn: Mr. Tom Kio
                                22570 Adams Road
                              South Bend, IN 46628


         As agreed,  SSI, and or its  affiliates,  will install a burglar  alarm
system and a CCTV monitoring system in the aforementioned store for the price of
$9975 (nine thousand nine hundred  seventy five dollars).  It is understood that
USSC/American Stores will supply all equipment to be installed and that American
Stores will have each store  prewired,  with all  necessary  junction  boxes and
conduit  laid prior to our  installation  of these  systems.  If for some reason
American  Stores fails to prewire said  facilities,  SSI, and/or its affiliates,
will  run the  wire,  lay the  conduit  and  install  the  needed  boxes  for an
additional  price of $1800 (one thousand eight hundred dollars) per store, for a
total price of $11,775 (eleven thousand seven hundred seventy five dollars). SSI
shall provide on sight inspection of the store, and  USSC/American  Stores shall
pay SSI the  agreed  upon  amounts  for its  services  within 30 days  after the
completion of the installation of said systems. Thank you for allowing SSI to be
of service.

Warmest Regards,
Barry A. Ellsworth

                                       23
#### Park Brothers v. Sanger Brothers.

(No. 2228.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

*( Transferred from Austin. J*

Stemmons (Sc Field, counsel for appellants.

John Bookhout, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 196. *Certiorari; motion to dismiss must be made at return term; case stated.*Appellees having recovered a judgment against appiellauts in justice’s court, the latter removed the cause by *certiorari*to the county court. At the return term appellees excepted generally and specially to the sufficiency of the petition for *certiorari,*but made no formal motion to dismiss the same. These exceptions were overruled at said term and the cause was continued. At a subsequent term appellees made a - mo*238tion to dismiss the *certiorari,*based upon several grounds, which motion was sustained. *Held*error. Conceding that appellees’ exceptions to the petition filed at the return term should be given the effect of a formal motion to dismiss, which, however, we do not hold to be the law, still said exceptions were overruled, and the correctness of that ruling is not before us for revision. It was too late at a subsequent term to move to dismiss the *certiorari*upon the same or upon other grounds, and the court erred in entertaining the motion. [2 W. Con. Rep. § 109.] Such a motion might perhaps have been maintained upon the ground that the county court had not jurisdiction of the case, but the record before us shows that such ground did not exist.

November 24, 1886.

Reversed and remanded.
583 A.2d 300

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM BALDWIN.

January 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Pehong Chen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of BroadVision, Inc., certifythat:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BroadVision, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability 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 control over financial reporting.Date: December 15, 2006                                      /s/ PEHONG CHEN   Pehong Chen   *Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00459-CV

In re Garland Wayne Scroggins

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Relator Garland Wayne Scroggins filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. 

However, he failed to provide a record demonstrating his entitlement to mandamus relief. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring appendix to mandamus petition to contain “a certified 

or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter 

complained of”); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661-62 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. 

proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. 

proceeding). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 

52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Kelly

Filed: October 6, 2020
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit No. 21.1

                           Fisher Communications, Inc.
                                  Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                             Jurisdiction in Which Organized
<S>                                                    <C>
Fisher Broadcasting Company                            Washington
Fisher Mills Inc.                                      Washington
Fisher Properties Inc.                                 Washington
Fisher Media Services Company                          Washington
Fisher Pathways, Inc. /(1)/                            Washington
Fisher Radio Regional Group Inc. /(2)/                 Washington
Valley Milling Company /(3)/                           Washington
Fisher Broadcasting - Georgia, L.L.C. /(2)/            Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Seattle TV, L.L.C. /(2)/         Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Seattle Radio, L.L.C. /(2)/      Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Portland TV, L.L.C. /(2)/        Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Portland Radio, L.L.C. /(2)/     Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Oregon TV, L.L.C. /(2)/          Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Washington TV, L.L.C. /(2)/      Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Idaho TV, L.L.C. /(2)/           Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - S.E. Idaho TV, L.L.C. /(2)/      Delaware
Fisher Entertainment, L.L.C. /(1)/                     Delaware
</TABLE>

(1)     Wholly owned by Fisher Media Services Company
(2)     Wholly owned by Fisher Broadcasting Company
(3)     Wholly owned by Fisher Mills Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ZARING
NATIONAL CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    152,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          25,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        117,068
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,957
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,230
<SALES>                                        309,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               309,666
<CGS>                                          262,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,058)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,210)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (4,530)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,740)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.43)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Silverleaf
Resorts, Inc


Dallas,
Texas





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-134888 and 333-146854) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-64763 and
333-118474) of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2009,
relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form
10-K.








/s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP


Dallas,
Texas


March 10,
2009
#### Katherine Christian EASTERLY v. Joshua F. GOODSON.

No. 2010-CC-2681.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 2011.

In re Easterly, Katherine Christian; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2009-14392; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1953.

Denied. Defendant’s Motion for Sanction Denied.
#### Kelvin WELLS, Sr. v. Geneva BANKS.

No. 2011-OC-2354.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Wells Sr., Kelvin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 135511; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1119.

Not considered; not timely filed. *See State v. Crandell,*05-1060 (La.3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122; *Morris v. Stueben,*01-0137 (La.1/26/01), 781 So.2d 1220.
Exhibit 31.1



Certifications



I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., 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/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.                     
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.) President and
Director