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

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<CIK>                            0000893970
<NAME>                     ATEC GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                              1
<CURRENCY>                              USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                       JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                1
<CASH>                                                 2,323,368
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          9,414,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                            1,891,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      15,465,392
<PP&E>                                                   694,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        17,874,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  6,311,889
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                               33,000
<COMMON>                                                  73,270
<OTHER-SE>                                            11,456,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          17,874,556
<SALES>                                               37,720,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      37,720,193
<CGS>                                                 30,814,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         37,072,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         (44,514)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          692,180
<INCOME-TAX>                                             285,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      406,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             406,380
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                .06


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 05 50 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA ALLEN BALDWIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 30 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 13 2023

09/13/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0550
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1992-C,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         249,738
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               413,328
<PP&E>                                         6,978,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,861,115)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,530,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,910
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,522,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,530,246
<SALES>                                        211,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               222,286
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,960<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                22,307
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            22,307
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   22,307
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Administrator

Deputy

Administrator

(Chief Operating Officer)

Chief Education 

Officer

Chief Safety & Mission

Assurance Officer

Inspector General

MISSION DIRECTORATES

ExplorationSystems

Science Space Operations

JohnsonKennedyMarshallStennis

AmesGoddardJet Propulsion Laboratory

MISSION SUPPORT OFFICES

Chief Financial

Officer

Chief Information

Officer

Chief Engineer

Institutions & Management

ProcurementSmall & Disadvantaged

Business Utilization*

Independent

TechnicalAuthority

Human Capital ManagementInfrastructure and AdministratioDiversity and Equal OpportunitySecurity and Program Protection

* In accordance with law, the Offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization maintain rep

** Including a new emphasis on internal communications.
#### Swan *v.*Rary.

Tire issues must be made up belike the jury are sworn, excepting only that a *similiter*may be dispensed with.

An affidavit by the plaintiff’s attorney, that ho had left the replication on the clerk’s *292table with the papers in the cause, and that it had afterwards come into the deponent’s possession by mistake, does not show, with sufficient certainty, that the replication had been properly filed.

*Thursday, November*12

APPEAL from the *Parke*Circuit Court.

*Dewey*and Kinney, for the appellant.

Cone, for the appellee.

Blackford, J.

This was an action of slander by *Rary*against *Swan.*The defendant pleaded not guilty and a justification. Verdict for the plaintiff below. A motion was made by the defendant below in arrest of judgment* because there was no replication to his special plea. It appeared, that after the verdict had been received, the replication to the special plea .was in possession of *Rary's*attorney, and had not been filed, unless the following facts, shown by that attorney’s affidavit, amounted to a filing,—viz. that he had left the replication on the clerk’s table with the papers in the cause, and that it had afterwards come into the attorney’s possession by mistake, The Circuit Court overruled the motion in arrest of judgment, and rendered judgment on the verdict.

It is not disputed, but that it was necessary to file the replication previously to the trial. The issues must be made up before the jury are sworn; excepting only, as we have heretofore decided, that the *similiter*may be dispensed with. *Jared*v. Goodtitle, *Nov.*term, 1818 (1). The only question in this case is, was the replication properly filed? Our opinion is, that the record does not show that it was. It is not stated by the affidavit, that *the*replication was ever in *the*hands of the clerk. After the trial, it was found to be, by mistake, in the possession of the plaintiff’s attorney. The circumstance of its having been once left on the clerk’s table, by the attorney, is not, under the circumstances of the case, sufficient evidence that it had been properly filed. The motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Vol. 1. of these Rep. 29. It is held, in a late case, that even the omission to add the *similiter*is an irregularity for which a verdict will be set aside. *Griffith*v. Crockford, 3 Brod. & Bing. 1. But there are several cases to the contrary. Vide note to *Jared*v. *Goodtitle,*cited in the text.
<PAGE>

                                                                          EX. 23






The Board of Directors
Security Financial Bancorp, Inc.
St. John, Indiana


We consent to incorporation by reference of our report dated August 7, 2001 on
the consolidated financial statements of Security Financial Bancorp, Inc. ("the
Company") as of June 30,2001 and 2000 and for the year then ended, which report
is included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 20, 2000 and August 14, 2001.


                                           /s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
                                           -------------------------------------
                                               Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP


Oak Brook, Illinois
September 27, 2001
Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Harris & Harris Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31,
2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Douglas W. Jamison, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Patricia N. Egan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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/ Douglas W. Jamison             | 
|---------------------------------- | 
|Name:   Douglas W. Jamison         | 
|Title:     Chief Executive Officer | 
|Date:     May 8, 2014              | 
|                                   | 
|/s/ Patricia N. Egan               | 
|Name:   Patricia N. Egan           | 
|Title:     Chief Financial Officer | 
|Date:     May 8, 2014              | 



2
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

March 18, 2024 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics 

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Space Policy 

Institute, George Washington University Dinner on March 20, 2024 

On March 20, 2024, the Space Policy Institute (SPI), George Washington University (GWU), 

a nonprofit organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a dinner at 

the DACOR Bacon House, 1801 F Street NW, Washington, DC, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 

The guest speaker is Anna Gomez, Commissioner of the Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Approximately 40 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local 

government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies, 

academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all 

food and beverages, is $150 per person. SPI is in control of the organizing, planning and 

invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange 

information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements 

of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties. 

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the SPI/GWU, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating 

or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their 

local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. 

Adam F. Greenstone
~A0435 Case 2: 15-mfi<J©@64tlY~ID@Of tli9tJ©ttiTiientc8863 Filed 11/20/17 FPa~eQ}}IUf'lJ;IE QNIN . ; > 

AZ Form (Rev 1/2015) DUIWATE: 

TRANSCRIPT ORDER . ; .·· 

I NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3

Mark O'Connor · DATE 11 /2/2017 

602 530-8594 

4 FIRM NAME 

Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. 

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 

2575 E Camelback Road Suite 1100 Phoenix , 8. l~~~~~E AZ 

9. CASE NUMBER 110. JUDGE DGC DATES OF PROCEEDINGS 

2:15-md-02641 II 11/17/2017 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS 

Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation 14. Phoenix 15. STATE AZ 

16. ORDER FOR 

D APPEAL D CRIMINAL D CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT D BANKRUPTCY 

D NON-APPEAL bZJ CIVIL D IN FORMA PAUPERIS D OTHER (Specify) 

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) ofprocceding(s) for which transcript is requested.) 

PORTIONS DATE!Sl PORTIONISl DATEISl 

D VOIR DIRE D TESTIMONY (Specify) 

D OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintifl) 

D OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant) 

D CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintifi) D PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING 

D CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant) 

D OPINION OF COURT 

D JURY INSTRUCTIONS Ill OTIIER (Specify) 

D SENTENCING Status Conference 11/17/2017 

D BAIL HEARING 

18. ORDER 

ORIGINAL+ I FIRST #OF DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS ·. 

CATEGORY (original to Court, COPY ADDITIONAL (Check all that apply.) ESTIMATED COSTS 

conv to ordering narty) COPIES 

30 DAYS D D D PAPER COPY 

14DAYS D D Ill PDF (e-mail) 

7 DAYS D Ill 

DAILY D D Ill ASCII (e-mail) .. · . 

HOURLY D D . 

REALTIME D D 

E-MAIL ADDRESS 

CERTIFICATION ( 19. & 20.) mark.aeon nor@gknet.com By signin~will pay all charges 

/1 , plus add1 on~ 

19.S!G7/~~ NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 

20. DATE 11/21/2017 

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY 

ESTIMATE TOTAL 

... 

ORDER RECEIVED PATE BY 

PROCESSED BY ·. ·.·PHONE NUMBER 

; ; . ·.· ,:,_, .·-.. ;· ; i . . ..; . ; ·. 

; .. ; . .. ... 

DEPOSIT PAID I .·. PEPQSIT P.AJ]) . ·.· ·. .... .. .. .. . · . 

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES . .·· ; ·. . .... TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT . ·. 

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED . ..· . 

TO PICKUP TRANSCRIPT 

TOTAL REflJNDEP 

.. •· ·. 

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT .. TOTAL DUE 

DISTRIBl 1TION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8870 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Jno. M. James et al *v.*W. D. Black.

Principal and Surety — Other Names — Principal Sureties’ Agent — Bond—Delivery — Fraudulent Combination.

If the sureties in a bond shall see proper to trust their principal as their agent to get other names and to deliver the bond to the obligee they will be bound by his acts, unless they can show a fraudulent combination with the obligee; the bare knowledge of the latter is not sufficient.

APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT.

November 26, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

The court committed no error in the excluding of the testimony, if the sureties in a bond shall see proper to trust'their prin*32cipal as their agent to get other names and to deliver the bond to the obligee, they will be bound by his acts in delivering the bond without getting such names unless they can show that he entered into a fraudulent combination with the obligee. The bare knowledge of the latter, if certainly made out of the understanding between the agent and his sureties, will not defeat the obligatory force of the bond. If sureties should desire to protect themselves in such cases, they can do sp by either seeing that all the proposed sureties sign their names, or by a covenant in the writing that it is not to be obligatory until signed by the therein named sureties.

*Van Winkle, for appellant.*

*James, for appellee.*

The evidence tends strongly to establish a fraudulent sale by Grover to Murphy, and the subsequent sale of a part of the land conveyed to Murphy, by Grover to James and Williams, and Murphy’s ratification of it fortifies this conclusion, and indicates that though James’ and Williams’ notes were taken by Grover payable to Murphy, yet that these really belonged to Grover, and there was nothing erroneous in their appropriation to the benefit of Grover’s creditors.

The petition has a two-fold object, one to set aside the fraudulent conveyance by Grover to Murphy, the other to obtain an attachment for $800. As the suit would be a *lis pendens*as to the land, there was nothing erroneous in holding the notes of James and Williams to Murphy, but which really belonged to Grover, responsible to the extent of $800 under this attachment. All parties had a knowledge of the objects of the suit from service of process on them, and any voluntary payment of these notes after process served would be in the party’s own wrong. Seeing no available error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATON
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**





**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to**


**§
      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 December 31, 2006, (the”Report”), I, William P. Hales, Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
      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/
      William P. Hales


William
      P. Hales


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)








February
      20, 2007





























A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.


24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas J. Calicchio,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04184-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Murphy Law Firm LLC

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/14/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9223 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
#### GENERAL ACCIDENT INS. CO. OF AM. v. MSL ENTERS., INC.

No. 112P99-2

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 453

Petition by third-party defendants and third-party plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 30 August 2001.