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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           6,030                   4,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,340                  35,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,500                   5,912
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,418                  42,083
<PP&E>                                          73,495                  58,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,086)                 (3,080)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,448                 155,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          (49,716)                (38,098)
<BONDS>                                       (107,795)                (83,559)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          (21,305)                (19,455)
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           (20)                    (18)
<OTHER-SE>                                     (11,932)                (10,851)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (193,448)               (155,018)
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              (233,048)                (75,226)
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,755                  70,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   108                     448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   758                   1,035
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,068                     590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,054)                 (3,466)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,092                   1,389
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,779)                 (1,876)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.12)                  (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.12)                  (0.72)


</TABLE>
#### LOUTRE LAND AND TIMBER COMPANY v. Wilton A. ROBERTS, Edward Roberts, Mark A. Roberts and Toni L. Roberts Daschke.

No. 2010-C-2327.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Loutre Land and Timber Co.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 36,820-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,355-CA.

Granted.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. 

375 PARK AVE FL 2

Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

NEW YORK, New York 10152-0002

Re:                Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities,Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-LC16

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of June 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)     A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performanceunder the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b)     Tothe best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### THE STATE v. SPAETH, Appellant.

Division Two,

February 3, 1903.

Ho Errors: aítirmance. Where the indictment is properly drawn, and the instructions are free from objection and cover every phase of the case, and there is no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Ho». *Walter B: Douglas,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*John A. Porter*for appellant.

*Edivard C. Groiu,*Attorney-General, and *G. D. Corum*for the State.

*593BURGESS, J.

Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis of burglary and larceny, and Ms punishment fixed at three years imprisonment in the penitentiary for the burglary, and two years for the larceny. He appeals. Defendant is not represented in this court. The indictment is well enough. The instructions cover every phase of the case, and are free from objection. There was no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, and the verdict is well warranted by tbe evidence.

Tbe judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0649

_____________________________
L ESTER B ROWN ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

— Original Jurisdiction

.

August 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The amended petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

L EWIS , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Lester Brown, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
#### In the Matter of the SUCCESSION OF Napoleon “Mutt” HARRISON.

No. 2011-C-0773.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Palmer, Charles B.W.; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 10451; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 CA 1566, 2010 CW 2240.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1714 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1714

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2008

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Clam Pass 
                              Unit FL-64P.

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

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM 
              MAPS.

    (a) In General.--The map subtitled ``FL-64P'', relating to the 
Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as Coastal Barrier 
Resources System Clam Pass Unit FL-64P, that is included in the set of 
maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and referred to in 
section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), 
is hereby replaced by another map relating to that unit entitled 
``Coastal Barrier Resources System Clam Pass Unit, FL-64P'' and dated 
July 21, 2005
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the map 
referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for inspection in 
accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 
U.S.C. 3503(b)).

            Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Robert F. Reeves,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Form 10-KSB Annual Report of Winmax Trading Group Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

o     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

Date: May 7, 2005

/s/Gerald E. Sklar
-----------------------------------
Gerald E. Sklar
Chief Executive Officer,
EXHIBIT
32.1

|Certification
ofCentral Coast BancorpPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2005



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), each of the
undersigned officers of Central Coast Bancorp, a California corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify that:


1. The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005
(the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|       |  |              
|------ |  | -------------
|Dated: |  | July 27, 2005
|       |  |              
|       |  |              
|      
|Dated: |  | July 27, 2005
|       |  |              
|       |  |              
|       |  |              

|A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Central Coast Bancorp and will be retained by Central Coast Bancorp
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James D. ROSS.

No. 2011-KO-2731.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

*1245In re Ross, James D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 450000; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0791.

Denied.
#### Tommy Bernard JACKSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D10-2877.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Nov. 12, 2010.

Tommy Bernard Jackson, East Palatka, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Tommy Jackson petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to file a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). He claims his attorney should have challenged the legality of his drug offender probation. We agree.

Jackson was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, which is not one of the enumerated offenses for which drug offender probation can be imposed under section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2007). Therefore, we grant Jackson’s petition and remand to the lower court so that Jackson’s drug offender probation can be converted to regular probation with or without special conditions, as the court deems appropriate. *See Taylor v. State,*17 So.3d 310, 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); *State v. Roper,*915 So.2d 622, 623-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

PETITION GRANTED and CAUSE REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, EVANDER, and JACOBUS JJ., concur.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

         Certification of the President and Principal Financial Officer
                       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 A.B.  Watley Group Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-K  for the  year  ended  Septembers  30,  2002,  as  filed  with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Robert
Malin,  the  President  and  Vice-Chairman  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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 results of operations
          of the Company.



                                             /s/ ROBERT MALIN
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Robert Malin
                                             Principal Financial Officer
                                             Date: March 3, 2003




<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Income in the company's Form 10-Q
for the nine months ending September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,317,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,140,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,132,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     26,948,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,436,000
<PP&E>                                          21,547,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (7,933,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,345,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,872,000
<BONDS>                                          4,720,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               45,000
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,701,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,345,000
<SALES>                                         41,414,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,414,000
<CGS>                                           25,076,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,605,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    86,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,384,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (737,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (831,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (831,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.02)



</TABLE>
----

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of ReWalk Robotics Ltd.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 annual report. |

| By:    | /s/ Larry Jasinski            |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | Larry Jasinski                |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

----
#### L. C. Curtis v. J. Bernstein & Co.

(No. 3336.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 671. *Appeal from justice’s court; withdrawal of, in justice’s court; does not affect trial in county court, when; case stated.*On June 30, 1884, appellees recovered a judgment against appellant in a justice’s court for $181.50. Appellant moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and he gave notice of appeal to the county court and filed an appeal bond. On October 11, 1884, he placed in the papers in the cause a writing, abandoning his appeal and agreeing that execution upon the judgment might issue *instanter.*It does not appear that this paper was ever filed with or called to the attention of the justice, nor does it appear that appellees had any notice of the same. At the instance of appellees, the justice sent up the transcript and papers in the case to the county court, where, at the first term of said court after said appeal, judgment was rendered against appellant, he not having appeared in said court. Appellant moved to set aside said judgment at the same term it was rendered, and for a new trial, upon the grounds: 1. That the county court did not have jurisdiction of *593the appeal, he having abandoned said appeal in the justice’s court; and 2. That judgment was improperly ren-, dered against him at the first term, he not having been notified of said appeal. This motion was overruled. *Held:*Neither ground of the motion is maintainable. If appellant had called attention to his written abandonment of appeal, and procured the justice to make an entry on his docket to the effect that said appeal had been withdrawn, such an entry, if made during the term at which the judgment was rendered, would have been authorized and valid, because, during the term, a justice, as any other court, has authority to change his own judgments. [Blum v. Wettermark, 58 Tex. 125.]

May 9, 1885.

§ 672. *Same; is perfected, when; jurisdiction of court' a quo ceases, when.*In civil cases, when the appeal bond is filed, the appeal becomes perfected at the adjournment of the term, and the court *a quo*has no further jurisdiction over the case; the jurisdiction then attaching in the court appealed to, and the court appealed from is then without authority to take any further action or make any further order in the case.

§ 673. *Notice in county court of appeal from justice’s court; appellant not entitled to.*The statute providing for notice in the county court, of an appeal from justice’s court, is applicable alone to the appellee or party against whom the appeal is taken. It has no reference to the appellant, the party prosecuting the appeal, who is presumed to know whether or not, and when, and to what court he has appealed. He is the party who must *give,*not *receive,*notice of the appeal. [R. S. art. 1638; Acts 18th Leg. p. 91.]

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHAMAR T. STANFORD, )

)

Defendant Below, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. 277, 2017

)

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

Plaintiff Below, )

Appellee.

ORDER

This ___ day of _______________, 2017, having considered the State’s 

Motion to Remand, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the case is remanded to Superior Court for 

the Superior Court to address any outstanding claims in Stanford’s May 17, 2017 

amended Motion for Postconviction Relief in the first instance. 

Jurisdiction is not retained.

_______________________________

Granted EFiled: Jul 25 2017 08:14AM EDT 

Filing ID 60891545

Case Number 277,2017
/s/ Judge Seitz, Collins 

Court: DE Supreme Court 

File & Serve

Transaction ID: 60872958 

Current Date: Jul 25, 2017 

Case Number: 277,2017 

Case Name: Stanford, Shamar v. State of Delaware