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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          26,634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,000
<INVENTORY>                                     83,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               288,567
<PP&E>                                         221,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,979
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 491,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          597,420
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,974
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,318,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   491,537
<SALES>                                        203,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               203,798
<CGS>                                          140,232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  140,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                66,057
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,490)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,490)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,490)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WALTER B. BROWN.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
****

StHealth Capital Investment Corp 10-K** **

** **

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

 

**Certification of Principal ExecutiveOfficer**

**Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**  

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of CompanyNamea Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2017 of the Company (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Order entered June 6, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01416-CR

No. 05-17-01417-CR

BERRY RAY WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 16-60034-86-F, 17-00260-86-F

ORDER

By order entered on March 21, 2018, the Court granted appellant’s second motion to 

extend the time to file his brief. The Court’s order extended the due date for appellant’s brief to 

April 20, 2018. On April 25, 2018, the Clerk transmitted a notice to appellant informing him 

that the time for filing his brief had expired and directing him to file, within ten days, both the 

brief and an extension motion. To date, appellant has not responded to the Clerk’s notice, and he 

has not filed a brief.

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether 
appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

These appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,346,365
<SECURITIES>                                19,640,317
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,249,953
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,329,251
<PP&E>                                         408,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,848,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          513,329
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,621
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,901,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,848,160
<SALES>                                          7,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               286,463
<CGS>                                            1,160
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  424,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,679,949
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,846,840)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,846,840)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,846,840)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.77)
        

</TABLE>
#### Whitaker, Appellee, *v.*French-Bauer, Inc., Appellant.

(No. 6349

Decided November 22, 1943.)

*198
      *Mr. Stanley L. Kennedy,*for appellee.

*Mr. Robert L. Blade, Mr. Robert Fosdick*and *Mr. Robert F. Badgley,*for appellant.

By the Court.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas o'f Hamilton county, Ohio.

In this case the defendant admitted liability through the opening statement of its counsel. It sought, however, to introduce evidence tending to show that the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff could not have been incurred, for the reason that the impact of the two vehicles involved was slight and trivial. The court excluded such evidence and refused counsel the right to then make a proffert. In so doing, the court committed error, prejudicial to defendant. The court also in questioning the plaintiff framed certain questions in a manner which could not be otherwise than prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the case remanded to that court for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

Ross, P. J., Hildebrant and Matthews, JJ., concur.
#### Raymond E. OSLOOND, Sr.; Mary Ellen Osloond, Appellants, v. Richard MOWELL; Brian Wurtele; Pat Humphrey; Warren G. Johnson; Rod Oswald; John H. Fitzgerald, III; Christopher W. Madsen, Appellees.

No. 00-2691.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 5, 2001.

Decided Jan. 9, 2001.

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Raymond and Mary Osloond appeal from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Osloonds claimed defendants conspired to deprive them of their property without due process and in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, by seizing certain vehicles from a storage unit pursuant to a state court writ of execution, and later selling them at a sheriffs auction. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that the Os-loonds have failed to show defendants violated any federal statutory or constitutional right. *See Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp.,*172 F.3d 531, 535-36 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review; alleged facts or evidence must suggest violation of rights under Constitution or United States statutes as prerequisite to § 1983 liability). Because the seizure occurred under a valid writ of execution, and a post-deprivation remedy was available, there was no violation of the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments. *See id.*at 536-37 (seizure was not unreasonable where sheriff erroneously seized third party’s boat located on property levied under valid writ of execution; *572post-deprivation hearing satisfied due process); S.D. Codified Laws § 15-18-31 (1984) (third party may claim ownership of levied property in trial by special jury).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The HONORABLE KAREN E. SCHREIER, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20419

Contact: Matthew Shannon FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

(202) 254-4477 November 29, 2011 

TDD/Videophone Users: 

Please Call Via Relay 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD (MSPB) TO 

CONDUCT ORAL ARGUMENT IN LATHAM ET AL. ON DECEMBER 13, 2011 

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, MSPB will hear oral arguments in the matters of James C.

Latham v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number DA‐0353‐10‐0408‐I‐1; Ruby N. Turner v. U.S. Postal

Service, MSPB Docket Number SF‐0353‐10‐0329‐I‐1; Arleather Reaves v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB

Docket Number CH‐0353‐10‐0823‐I‐1; Cynthia E. Lundy v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number AT‐

0353‐11‐0369‐I‐1; and Marcella Albright v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket Number DC‐0752‐11‐0196‐

I‐1 (Latham et al.).  The proceedings will take place at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit, Room 201, 717 Madison Place, N.W., Washington, D.C.  See 76 FR 73691,

November 29, 2011.

Latham et al. raise the following legal issues:  (1) May a denial of restoration be “arbitrary and

capricious” within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 353.304(c) solely for being in violation of the U.S. Postal

Service’s own internal rules; and (2) what is the extent of the agency’s restoration obligation under its

own internal rules, i.e., under what circumstances do the agency’s rules require it to offer a given task to

a given partially recovered employee as modified work?  The Board requested and received an advisory

opinion from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in this matter.  See 5 U.S.C. § 1204(e)(1)(A).  

The Board also invited and received amicus curiae briefs.  See 76 FR 44373, July 25, 2011.   

The parties and the two amici curiae who asked to participate in oral argument will be allotted

time to present oral argument in this matter.  The briefs submitted by the parties and the amici curiae,

as well as OPM’s advisory opinion, are available for viewing on MSPB’s website at

http://www.mspb.gov/oralarguments/.  The MSPB will also make a recording of the oral argument

available on its website.  The public is welcome to attend this hearing for the sole purpose of

observation.  Persons with disabilities who require reasonable accommodation to participate in this

event should direct the request to the MSPB Director of Equal Employment Opportunity at (202) 254‐

4405 and V/TDD users should call via relay.  All requests should be made at least one week in advance.

This is the third time that MSPB has conducted an oral argument in the past 15 months after not

hearing oral arguments for over 20 years.  The MSPB continues to utilize oral argument in appeals like

Latham et al. that present issues of special significance because of their broad potential impact on the

Federal civil service and merit systems.

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent, quasi‐judicial agency that protects Federal

merit systems and the rights of individuals within those systems.  The MSPB also conducts studies of the civil

service and other merit systems in the Executive Branch.
Exhibit 12.2

Certification by the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to

Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, David Schilansky, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of DBV Technologies S.A.;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                             
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: January 29, 2018
|                      
|/s/ David Schilansky  
|Name:                  |  | David Schilansky                                            
|Title:                 |  | Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Fort Bend County, Texas

JOHN F. HEALEY, JR.

District Attorney

July 28, 2015

Clerk, Court ofAppeals

First Judicial District

301 Fannin

Houston, Texas, 77002

"^

! "LED IN ~ *STCobRTOFA .

6 HOUSTON. TEXAS J

AUG 03 2015

/CHfflSTOWtt* A^g

(281)341-4460

Fa^, (281)238-3340

..4/

CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT #: 7012 3460 0002 4097 9572

Re: In re: Donald Corey Hill

Cause No. 01-14-00977-CR

Dear Mr. Prine:

The State requests leave to borrow the reporter's and clerk's record from the Court to

insure it is using the appellate record filed with this Court in preparing its appellate brief.

Please have the appellate record sent to the undersigned assistant district attorney for this

purpose. The undersigned will promptly return the record when done.

Thank you for your kind assistance in these matters.

Sincerely,

John F. Healey

District Attorney

John J. Harrity III

SBN#09133100

Assistant District Attorney

iharritv@co.fort-bend.tx.us

cc: Don Hecker

Attorney for Appellant

Mailing: 301 Jackson • 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Suite 20234 • Richmond, TX 77469-3108
Exhibit 4.362

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 149924 dated October 21, 2016

 

For Rendering

 

telecommunication services for Cable Broadcasting

 

This License is granted to

 

Limited Liability Company

 

MultiKabelnie seti Balashikhi

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1165001054261

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

5001111094

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

75, Lenina prospect, Balashikha, Moscow region, 143907

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until June 19, 2021.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated December 06, 2016 No. 639-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Ivanov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF   COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION 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) 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), the
undersigned officer of Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc. (the Company)
hereby certifies with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the 10-Q Report) that to his knowledge:  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ Henry R. Mandell Henry R. Mandell
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 32.2

                          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 Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kevin Schott, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.

Date: December 16, 2005                       By:      /s/ KEVIN SCHOTT
      -----------------                          ---------------------------
                                                         Kevin Schott
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
Strategic Messages

Infrastructure Investment

A multi-generational commitment to invest in our water commerce infrastructure 

transformed this great nation from a largely agrarian nation to the world’s preeminent economic power. We have seen with great interest the various 

infrastructure priority lists for possible funding under the President’s infrastructure 

initiatives and applaud the inclusion of water infrastructure. 

 Our nation’s inland waterways system has more miles of navigable river than the 

rest of the world combined.

 The inland waterways connect the main industrial centers of the interior 

(Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Memphis, Tennessee; 

St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri) with coastal ports.

 The inland navigation system overlays the largest contiguous section of farmland 

in the world. Most prime agricultural lands are within 120 miles of a navigable 

river. 

 95 percent of all United States imports and exports ($4.1 trillion) move on our 

waterways and ports.

 Inland waterways account for 2 billion tons of domestic and imported cargo 

annually.