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 of Grove  Property Trust as of June 30,
     2000 and for the six months then ended and is  qualified in its entirety by
     reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000920776
<NAME>                        Grove Property Trust
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              19,612
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    29,833
<PP&E>                                             354,427
<DEPRECIATION>                                      22,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     361,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               16,738
<BONDS>                                            242,877
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                83
<OTHER-SE>                                          69,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       361,474
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    32,805
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    20,814
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4,093
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  4,093
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4,093
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .48


</TABLE>
#### E. P. Clegg & Co. v. M. L. Gee.

(No. 1737.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

*Hurt, J.*

§ 543. *Estoppel; toaiver of right to plead breach of contract in bar of action on contract; case stated.*Appellee and appellants entered into a written contract, by the terms of which appellee was to serve appellants as a traveling salesman for $75 per month. It was stipulated in the contract that he should report to them each day by letter, or postal card, *“*his location,” and that a failure on his part to do this forfeited his right to any salary that might be due him. Appellee failed to report almost from the commencement of his services to the termination thereof. Appellants knew of this failure, but made no complaint, but on the contrary, after appellee had been in their service a month, and failing to report according to his contract, he visited them at Galveston, and, with a full knowledge of his failure to report, they made no complaint about it, but sent him out again on his travels under the same contract, except that *488appellee, when starting ont this time, informed appellants that he would only write to them when he sent orders. Appellants having refused to pay appellee his salary according to contract, he sued them therefor, and recovered judgment for the amount due him under said contract. *Held:*Appellants were estopped by their acts from insisting on appellee’s breach of the contract, and such estoppel entitled appellee to recover upon the contract.

February 14, 1885.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350

 

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, John R. Lyon, President and Chief Executive Officerof Vista Medical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)  TheCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March    , 2003 (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 
|           | /s/   John  R. Lyon     |
|----------------|----------------------------------------|
|           | John  R. Lyon                          |
|           | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|           |                                   |
|           |                                   |
| March 29, 2003 |

 

----
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1611 

To amend the Small Business Act to improve the 8(a) program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2007 

Mr. REYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to improve the 8(a) 

program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘8(a) Modernization 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) when the 8(a) program was implemented in 

9 1968, the thresholds for noncompetitive contracts 

10 were $3,000,000 and $5,000,000 (for manufac11 turing), and today those thresholds have risen to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1611 IH

1 only $3,500,000 and $5,500,000, respectively, a rate 

2 of growth far overtaken by inflation; and 

3 (2) when the 8(a) program was implemented in 

4 1968, the net worth limit was $250,000, and today 

5 that limit is exactly the same. 

6 SEC. 3. IMPROVEMENTS TO 8(a) PROGRAM. 

7 Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 637(a)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)(D)(i)(II)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘$12,000,000’’; and 

12 (B) by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ and insert13 ing ‘‘$10,000,000’’; and 

14 (2) in paragraph (6) by adding at the end the 

15 following: 

16 ‘‘(F) the Administrator shall establish, for 

17 each industry classification, a maximum level of 

18 net worth for an economically disadvantaged in19 dividual. In establishing such maximum levels, 

20 the Administrator shall take into consideration 

21 the capital needs of each industry. The Admin22 istrator shall not establish a maximum net 

23 worth that prohibits program entry of less than 

24 $750,000.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert CARLEY, et al.

No. 2011-KD-0922.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Carley, Robert; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. W-04-3-77; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0793.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Brandon ROBERTSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1220.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Robertson, Brandon; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 02-5336; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-157.

Denied.
#### WAREHOUSE 1800, LLC, and Peter Izaak, Appellants, v. Alan LIEBERMAN, Appellee.

No. 3D10-3338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 2011.

Arnstein <& Lehr, Franklin L. Zemel, and Natalie F. Guerra-Valdes, Fort Laud-erdale; Ginnis & Groysman and Roman Groysman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Robert P. Frankel, Miami, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*§ 608.4492(1), Fla. Stat. (2010).
#### Brian WILLIAMS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, James Leblanc, Secretary, and Jerry Goodwin, Warden of David Wade Correctional Center.

No. 2011-OK-1140.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Williams, Brian; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 577-831; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 2134.

Denied.
Exhibit 31.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302



OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Roy Dalene, certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Hamptons Luxury Homes, Inc.;



1.

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 annual report;



2.

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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



3.

I am the Companys certifying officer and am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:



a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company is made known to me, 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 Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



4.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors:



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 Company'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting.





Date: March 29, 2006        By: /s/   Roy Dalene

Name:  Roy Dalene

Title: Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            410,000
<SECURITIES>                                    6,193,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,168,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (121,000)
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                7,937,000
<PP&E>                                          4,569,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,066,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,440,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             704,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        5,253,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,976,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,229,000
<SALES>                                         2,147,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,233,000
<CGS>                                           1,042,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,958,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   275,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      108,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      167,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .05
                                                          

</TABLE>
* Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7362
JERRY L. CARY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HONORABLE ALAN E. ROSENBLATT, Judge; HONORABLE A. BONWILL SHOCKLEY, Judge; HONORABLE LEROY ROUNTREE HASSELL, Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court; STEVEN WITMER, Virginia Assistant Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-456-2) Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006 Before LUTTIG * and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry L. Cary, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Jerry L. Cary, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cary v. Rosenblatt , No. CA-05-456-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2005). We deny Cary’s motions for appointment of counsel, to amend the caption, and to amend his claim. 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Gordon McGilton, certify that:

1.      I havereviewed this amended annual report of Force Protection, Inc.;

2.      Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)    Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.      The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

(a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)    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: June 27, 2007 
| By:    | /s/ GORDON MCGILTON       |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Gordon McGilton           |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6 678

BOBBY M. NICHOLSON, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. AIR FORCE D.O.C./I.I.C. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv
- 003 98

- LO

- MSN )

Submitted : June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bobby Maurice Nicholson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bobby M. Nicholson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order d ismissing his civil complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A ( b )( 1 ) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Nicholson v. Air Force D.O.C./I.I.C. , No. 1:1 9

- cv
- 003 98

- LO

- MSN (E.D.
Va. filed Apr. 15 & entered Apr. 16 , 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10395 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TRAMAINE DEVION RUTH , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:18

- CR

- 105

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tramaine Devion
Ruth has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ruth h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relev ant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10395 Document: 00515177586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2019No. 19

- 10395

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further respons ibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-10395 Document: 00515177586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2019
#### Mary Lu Doucet HARDEE v. CITY OF JENNINGS.

No. 2011-C-1190.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re City of Jennings; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 3, No. 04-05403; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1540.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dwan A. SUMMERS.

No. 2010-K-2829.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Summers, Dwan A.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 454-336; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0341.

Denied.