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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1998
 
<CASH>                                         492,925
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     67,946,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                0
<PP&E>                                          18,240,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,334,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  224,482,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           123,956,002
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        87,208,347
<OTHER-SE>                                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    224,482,942
<SALES>                                         40,879,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,902,429
<CGS>                                           38,908,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (642)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,579,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 5,413,762
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,327,911
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,085,851
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.26
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTHONY BOX a/k/a ANTHONY D. BOX , Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK NA AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II , INC. , BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 2007

- AR3 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007

- AR3 , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3278

[ November 9 , 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barry Stone, Senior Judge ; L.T. Case No. CACE18

- 025 145

.

James Jean

- Francois of James Jean

- Francois, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.

William L. Grimsley of McGlinchey Stafford, Jacksonville, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

M AY , G ERBER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### BETTY WUETHRICH v. JOHN DELIA.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 155 *N. J. Super.*324)
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 207

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 10-year extension 

of the credit for producing electricity from wind. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23, 2003

Mr. SMITH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a 10-year extension of the credit for producing electricity 

from wind.

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

3 SECTION 1. 10-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRO4 DUCING ELECTRICITY FROM WIND. 

5 Section 45(c)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

6 1986 (relating to wind facility) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘January 1, 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2014’’.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                     MICRO WAREHOUSE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED                NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               SEPTEMBER 30,                     SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                            1999           1998             1999              1998
                                                        -----------    --------------    ------------      ------------
<S>                                                     <C>               <C>             <C>               <C>
Net income                                                 $12,953           $11,863         $37,246           $16,585
                                                        ===========    ==============    ============      ============

Shares
Weighted average common shares outstanding - Basic         35,763             34,816          35,611            34,695
Common equivalent shares                                       35                775             493               386
                                                        -----------    --------------    ------------      ------------

Weighted average common shares and common equivalent
shares outstanding - Diluted                                35,798            35,591          36,104            35,081
                                                        ===========    ==============    ============      ============
Net income per share - Basic                                 $0.36             $0.34           $1.05             $0.48
                                                        ===========    ==============    ============      ============

Net income per share - Diluted                               $0.36             $0.33           $1.03             $0.47
                                                        ===========    ==============    ============      ============
</TABLE>






                                      24
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67751-67752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27769]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 18, 2010, 2 p.m. to 
November 18, 2010, 4 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 2010, 75 FR 65498-65499.
    The meeting title has been changed to ``RFA Panel: Translational 
Research in Pediatric and Obstetric Pharmacology''. The meeting is 
closed to the public.


[[Page 67752]]


    Dated: October 28, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27769 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# James A. Lovell

Jim Lovell was a veteran of the Gemini VII, Gemini XII, and Apollo 8 missions before becoming the Mission Commander for the nearly disastrous Apollo 13 mission to the Moon.

### Quick Facts

Lovell joined NASA in 1962 as part of its second group of astronauts. 

Lovell’s first space flight was Gemini 7.

During Lovell’s four missions he logged 715 hours in space, a record that stood until surpassed by Skylab crew members in 1973. 

Lovell’s Apollo 13 crew included John L. “Jack” Swigert Jr. and Fred W. Haise Jr.

Lovell has logged more than 7,000 hours in a variety of aircraft, including 3,500 hours in high-performance jets.

### Biography

## James A. Lovell

Learn more about Astronaut James A. Lovell, including when he was selected by NASA to be an astronaut, his flight experience, education, background and more.  
                        Learn More about James A. Lovell

## More About James Lovell

				More Former Astronauts                			

Article4 Min Read
Apollo 13: The Successful Failure

Article7 Min Read
50 Years Ago: Apollo 13 Aquarius European Goodwill Tour

Article9 Min Read
55 Years Ago: Gemini XII Closes Out a Successful Program, Paves the Way for Apollo
Article11 Min Read
60 Years Ago: NASA Selects A Second Group of Astronauts

## James Lovell

29 Images

Go To Gallery

Go To Gallery

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Astronauts Home

Humans In Space

The Apollo Program

Artemis
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of UNR Holdings, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Iuriy Vladimirivich Shevchenko, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Iuriy Vladimirovich ShevchenkoIuriy Vladimirivich Shevchenko

Chief Financial Officer

April 15, 2010






[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to UNR Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by UNR Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

ANTHONY KENNEY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CENTRAL STATES INDEMNITY 

COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-5043

(D.C. No. 4:09-CV-00746-JHP-PJC)

(N.D. Okla.)

_______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 6, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-5043 Document: 01018451731 Date Filed: 07/06/2010 Page: 1
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Seni or Judge Bumgardner

RAYMOND GARNETT BATES MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1543-06-2 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 7, 2006 MOLINS RICHMOND, INC. AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Jamie L. Karek; Geoffrey R. McDonald & Asso ciates, P.C., on brief), for appellant. (S. Vernon Priddy III; Paul W. Emigholz; Nancy J. Wan; Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, on brief), for appellees.

Raymond Garnett Bates (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Claimant argues the commission erred in failing to apply the doctrine of imposition to save his claim. 1 We have

reviewed the record and the comm ission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stat ed by the commission in its final opinion. See Bates v. Molins Richmond, Inc. , VWC File No. 201-16-16 (May 23, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Because claimant limited his argument on appeal to the issue of imposition, that is the only issue we consider.- 2 - in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid th e decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2


                 CERTIFICATON OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
                ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of
Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002,
the quarterly report, I, Deborah F. Ricci, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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/ Deborah F. Ricci
Deborah F. Ricci
Chief Financial Officer


August 14, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1774 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1774

  To repeal the sunset provisions in the Undetectable Firearms Act of 
                                 1988.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 22, 2003

 Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Feinstein, 
 Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Schumer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the sunset provisions in the Undetectable Firearms Act of 
                                 1988.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorist Firearms Detection Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF SUNSET.

    Section 2(f) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 
922 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking the following: ``and Sunset Provision.--
            ``(1) Effective date''; and
            (2) by striking paragraph (2).
                                 <all>
```
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1768

AMENDMENT

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 21, 2003.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1768) entitled ‘‘An Act to extend the national flood insurance program’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Flood Insur3 ance Program Reauthorization Act of 2004’’.

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

5 (a) EXTENSION.—The National Flood Insurance Act

6 of 1968 is amended as follows:

7 (1) AUTHORITY FOR CONTRACTS.—In section

8 1319 (42 U.S.C. 4026), by striking ‘‘December 31,

9 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘March 31, 2004.’’.

10 (2) BORROWING AUTHORITY.—In the first sen11 tence of section 1309(a) (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)), by strik12 ing ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘the date

13 specified in section 1319’’.

14 (3) EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTATION.—In section

15 1336(a) (42 U.S.C. 4056(a)), by striking ‘‘December
2

•S 1768 EAH

1 31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘on the date specified in sec2 tion 1319’’.

3 (4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR

4 STUDIES.—In section 1376(c) (42 U.S.C. 4127(c)), by

5 striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘the date

6 specified in section 1319’’.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this

8 section shall be considered to have taken effect on December

9 31, 2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit
23.1






CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-153340, No. 333-149620, No. 333-145277, No. 333-145276, No.
333-140451, and No. 333-132481) of SonicWALL, Inc. of our report dated March 5,
2010, relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in
this Form 10-K.






/s/
ARMANINO McKENNA, LLP






San
Ramon, California


March 5,
2010
Order entered February 7, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00619 - CV LYNDON THOMPSON AND PAULA THOMPSON , Appellant s V. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIET FSB AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 22 - 00129 - B

O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ third motion for extension of time to file their brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than March 6, 2023. Because the brief was first due November 30, 202 2 , we caution that failure to file the brief may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

SSI Technology, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W56HZV-12-C-0058 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 593 79 

George W. Ash, Esq. 

Erin L. Toomey, Esq. 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

Detroit, MI 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Jamal A. Rhinehardt, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Appellant appealed from a 3 April 2014 contracting officer's letter purporting to 

be a final decision and the Board docketed the appeal as ASBCA No. 59379. By letter 

dated 10 July 2014, appellant requested to withdraw its appeal, stating that it had received 

notice from the government that the 3 April 2014 letter had been retracted and 

withdrawn, rendering the appeal moot. Appellant further represented that government 

counsel does not object to appellant's withdrawal of its appeal. Accordingly, this appeal 

is dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: 15 July 2014 

~~ Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59379, Appeal of SSI Technology, 

Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8505

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMES COURY HOLMES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:00-cr-00107-HMH-1) 

Submitted: September 18, 2009 Decided: September 30, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Coury Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 James Coury Holmes appeals from the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c) (2006). Holmes’ motion was based on Amendment 709 to 

the Sentencing Guidelines, see USSG App. C, Supp., Amend. 709 

(revising USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2)). Although the district court 

erroneously construed Holmes’ motion as one seeking relief under 

Amendment 706, we find the error harmless because Amendment 709 

does not apply retroactively and therefore would not authorize a 

reduction in Holmes’ sentence. See USSG § 1B1.10(c); United 

States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting 

that an amendment to the Guidelines may be applied retroactively 

only when the amendment is expressly listed in USSG 

§ 1B1.10(c)). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KEVIN STEWART.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 156 *N. J. Super.*551)
#### Robert J. Zysk, Appellant, v Fidelity Title Ins. Co. of New York et al., Respondents.

[790 NYS2d 135]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated December 3, 2003, as granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the causes of action in the complaint alleging defamation and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on those causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In the course of a real estate closing, a dispute arose between *610the plaintiff attorney for the sellers and the defendant title closer, Anne Marie Annexy, over certain fees. At some point in the transaction Annexy repeatedly shouted, “|y]ou ought to be ashamed of yourself,” “[y]ou are disgraceful,” and “[y]ou are disgusting.” The plaintiff alleges that these statements have harmed his professional reputation.

Accepting the facts set forth in the complaint and the plaintiff’s affidavit as true, and according him the benefit of every favorable inference, as we must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see *511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co.,*98 NY2d 144, 151-52 [2002]; *Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp.,*96 NY2d 409, 414 [2001]; *Lipton v Unumprovident Corp.,*10 AD3d 703, 706 [2004]), we find that the plaintiff has failed to sustain a cause of action alleging slander per se.

The statements at issue did not imply behavior that was incompatible with the proper conduct of the plaintiffs profession and made no reference to a matter of significance and importance to the plaintiffs ability to practice law. As such, Annexy’s statements did not fall within the “trade, business or profession” category of the slander per se rule *(see Liberman v Gelstein,*80 NY2d 429, 436 [1992]; *Aronson v Wiersma,*65 NY2d 592, 594 [1985]; *Warlock Enters. v City Ctr. Assoc.,*204 AD2d 438 [1994]). The average listener would certainly understand Annexy’s statements to be rhetorical hyperbole expressing her opinion of the plaintiffs character. Such statements are not actionable (s*ee Liberman v Gelstein, supra; Aronson v Wiersma, supra; Warlock Enters. v City Ctr. Assoc., supra; Gonzalez v Sackman,*185 AD2d 117, 118 [1992]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### Saffell *v.*Saffell.

Divorce — Allowance — Alimony.

The value of the husband’s entire estate should be ascertained and a reasonable allowance made out of it to the wife during the pendency of the suit for divorce, and also a reasonable sum for alimony.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 21, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Marshall :

It seems to this court that the -judgment is erroneous in not making any allowance to the plaintiff out of her husband’s estate. We are also of opinion that something should have been allowed to her for alimony during the pendency of her suit for divorce.

But the record does not show satisfactorily the value of the appellee’s entire estate; it will he necessary to ascertain that value.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to ascertain by commissioner or otherwise the value of the appellee’s entire estate, and to adjudge to the plaintiff a reasonable allowance out of it, and also a reasonable sum for the alimony which should have been paid to her during the pendency of the suit, and as further services may be rendered by her attorney in these proceedings, his fee, now apparently sufficient, may be fixed in the final adjustment of matters.