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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (241)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          38,584
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,470)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         26,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,477
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,711
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    296
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22


</TABLE>
Exhibit
3.3.7





CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT


OF


CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION OF


PATRIOT
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION





Patriot
Scientific Corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), does
hereby certify that:





I.           The
amendment to the Corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation set forth below was
duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 and has been
consented to in writing by the stockholders, in accordance with Section 228 of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





II.          The
first paragraph of the FIFTH Article of the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation be amended to read as follows:





FIFTH                      The
aggregate number of shares of capital stock of all classes which the Corporation
shall have authority to issue is FIVE HUNDRED FIVE MILLION (505,000,000), having
a par value of $.00001 per share, of which FIVE HUNDRED MILLION (500,000,000)
shall be designated Common Stock (the “Common Stock” or “Common Shares”), and
FIVE MILLION (5,000,000) shall be designated Preferred Stock, par value $.00001
per share (the “Preferred Stock”). The Preferred Stock may be issued from time
to time in one or more series. All shares shall be issued for such consideration
or considerations as the Board of Directors of the Corporation may from time to
time determine.  All rights, preferences, voting powers, relative,
participating, optional or other special rights and privileges, and
qualifications, limitations or restrictions of the Preferred Stock shall be
fixed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The rights, preferences,
voting powers, relative, participating, optional or other special rights and
privileges, and qualifications, limitations or restrictions of the Common Stock
shall be expressly made subject and subordinate to those that may be fixed with
respect to any shares of the Preferred Stock and shall be as
follows:





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Patriot Scientific Corporation has caused this Certificate to
be executed by David H. Pohl, its authorized officer, on this 10th day of
November, 2005.








/s/
      David H. PohlDavid
      H. Pohl, President andChief
      Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 8955]

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

On October 24, 2014, the Deputy Secretary of State took the following action: “Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of State, including by section 7008 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, Pub. L. 113-76), as carried forward by the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-64), and similar provisions in prior year Acts, Executive Order 12163, as amended, and State Department Delegation of Authority No. 245-1, I hereby determine and certify that, subsequent to the termination of assistance to the Government of Fiji after that country's December 2006 military coup, a democratically elected government has taken office in Fiji.

                        “This Determination and Certification shall be reported to Congress and published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .”                    

(Signed William J. Burns, Deputy Secretary of State)

This Determination and Certification has been reported to Congress.

Dated: October 29, 2014.

J. Paul Reid,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2014-27933 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-30-P
##### 



Year Ended December 31,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002EARNINGSPre-tax income from operations
    
    $
    85,795
    
    
    $
    78,549
    
    
    $
    23,930
    
    
    $
    9,231
    
    
    $
    11,385Fixed charges
    
    
    16,880
    
    
    
    16,403
    
    
    
    9,964
    
    
    
    13,786
    
    
    
    13,711Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Earnings available for fixed charges
    
    $
    102,675
    
    
    $
    94,952
    
    
    $
    33,894
    
    
    $
    23,017
    
    
    $
    25,096FIXED CHARGES:Interest expense (including debt issuance costs amortized to interest expense)
    
    $
    15,147
    
    
    $
    14,720
    
    
    $
    8,849
    
    
    $
    12,768
    
    
    $
    12,940Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest component of rent expense1
    
    
    1,733
    
    
    
    1,684
    
    
    
    1,115
    
    
    
    1,018
    
    
    
    771Total fixed charges
    
    $
    16,880
    
    
    $
    16,404
    
    
    $
    9,964
    
    
    $
    13,786
    
    
    $
    13,711Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    6.08
    
    
    
    5.79
    
    
    
    3.40
    
    
    
    1.67
    
    
    
    1.83
 
 1
    
    For purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, earnings are defined as income from continuing operations before income taxes and cumulative effect of change in
accounting principles plus fixed charges. Fixed charges include interest expense (including amortization of deferred financing costs) and an estimate of operating rental expense,
approximately 20%, which management believes is representative of the interest component.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00283-CR

The State of Texas

v.

Christopher Shawn Fellows

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-1-25664-D

JUDGMENT

The judgment issued by this Court on June 18, 2015, is hereby withdrawn, and 

the following is substituted therefor.

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the case 

remanded. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and the case 

REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 23, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Zhu Zhai Holdings Limited, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04985

Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

Steven Ivankovich

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, February 27, 2024:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Motion hearing

held on 2/27/2024. Counsel for Intervenor Jeanette Ivankovich did not file a motion to

intervene. Counsel is to file a motion to intervene, and it will not need to be noticed for

presentment. The Court will enter a follow up order once the motion is filed. The motion

for adverse claim [299] is stricken. Mailed notice. (ym)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 302 Filed: 02/27/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3851
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DONALD LOHR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 278 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### Allen Henderson, Jr. *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 3-774A133.

Filed November 26, 1975.

Rehearing denied January 16,1976. Transfer denied March 29, 1976.]

*Bernard M. Tetek, Gerald N. Svetanoff,*of Gary, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Douglas W. Meyer,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Garrard, J.

— Henderson was indicted for second degree murder in the shooting death of one Nathaniel Williams. In a bench trial he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. His appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

*58The evidence supporting the conviction establishes that two witnesses observed an altercation develop between Henderson and Williams in the Coney Island Restaurant. Both saw Henderson draw a pistol, aim it at Williams and fire. This shot missed, and the witnesses both got down on the floor for- safety.-- Both heard, rather than saw, the second shot fired. They then saw both men run out of the building, and one observed'blood on the floor. Moments later the' police discovered. Williams shot, through the chest in the alley behind - the -restaurant. The coroner testified- that he -performed an autopsy on Nathaniel Williams, and death was caused by the gunshot wound.

The evidence sustains the conviction. The unlawful act of purposely pointing the pistol at Williams was sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. *Minton*v. *State*(1964), 244 Ind. 686, 195 N.E.2d 355. Although no one observed the firing of the fatal second shot, it might be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt from the immediately preceding and fully witnessed first shot that Henderson was purposely and unlawfully aiming his pistol at Williams when the second shot was fired. *Compare, German*v. *State*(1975), 166 Ind. App. 370, 337 N.E.2d 883 where there was no circumstantial evidence of any purposeful-pointing.

Henderson also challenges the failure of the state to introduce in evidence any photographs of the person upon whom ■the autopsy was performed or to otherwise vérify that he was the same person that had been in the restaurant. However, all of the witnesses identified the person shot at, the person found in the alley, and the person upon whom the autopsy was performed as Nathaniel Williams.. ...It is theoretically-possible,- as. Henderson argues, for..-there, to have been more than one Nathaniel- Williams. Under :the facts-here'presented, the plausibility of one such person having been shot at by Henderson and the other having *59been autopsied, epitomizes the classic distinction between reasonable doubt and any possible doubt. There was no failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the decedent was the person fired upon by Henderson in the restaurant.

Affirmed.

Staton, P.J. and Hoffman, J., concur.

Note. — Reported at 337 N.E.2d 590.
Foreword 

This handbook has been prepared as a procedural guide for the compliance testing of net content statements 

on packaged goods. Compliance testing of packaged goods is the determination of the conformance of the 

results of the packaging, distribution, and retailing process (the packages) to specific legal requirements for 

net content declarations. This handbook has been developed primarily for the use of government officials.

However, it should also be useful to commercial and industrial establishments in the areas of packaging, 

distribution, and sale of commodities. 

In conducting compliance testing, the conversion of quantity values from one measurement system to

another (e.g., from the metric system to the avoirdupois system) should be handled with careful regard to

the implied correspondence between the accuracy of the data and the number of digits displayed. In all

conversions, the number of significant digits retained should ensure that accuracy is neither sacrificed nor 

exaggerated. For this 4th edition of Handbook 133 all dimensions for test procedures, devices, or

environments have been rounded to two significant digits (e.g., 2.5 cm to 1.0 in) or to a precision level

applicable to the test equipment (e.g., 200 kPa for 25 psi and 35 MPa for 5,000 psi). 

iii
EXHIBIT 32(a)**CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) ofLindsay Manufacturing Co. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended February 28, 2006, I,Richard W. Parod, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, David B. Downing, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge,that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.       /s/ Richard W. Parod         President and Chief Executive Officer  Richard W. Parod         /s/ David B. Downing         Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  David B. Downing         April 7, 2006       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
31
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1710
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:1711
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:1712
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:1713
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:1714
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:1715
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:1716
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:1717
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:1718
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:1719
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:1720
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:1721
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:1722
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:1723
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:1724
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:1725
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:1726
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:1727
Case: 1:20-cr-00577 Document #: 528 Filed: 12/09/22 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:1728
10040.

#### Ridley *et al. v.*The State.

Decided November 20, 1918.

Indictment for manufacturing whisky f from Bandolph superior court—Judge Worrill. July 13, 1918.

*Charles W. Worrill,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. There is no merit in the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. There is evidence authorizing the verdict, no error of law appears, and the finding of the jury having the sanction of the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this and the Supreme Court, a reviewing court is powerless to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
Order entered October 3, 2013 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01295-CV 

IN RE CATENARY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Relators 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-06312-D 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DISMISS relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus and DENY their motion for emergency temporary relief. We ORDER that relators 

bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
#### Jesse E. Hornaker *v.*Samuel Yeager.

Vendor and Purchaser — Estoppel of Purchaser.

A purchaser of laud can not be estopped by admissions made ¡by his remote vendor, unless he had notice thereof prior to his purchase.

APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

June 6, 1873.

*714
      *Halbert & Taylor, for appellant.*

*G. M. Thomas, Phister, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay: '

Appellee’s ■ title to the land upon which the alleged trespass was committed does not depend upon the legality of the patents issued to Wilson and Owings, but to the actual adverse occupancy, or possession of himself and those under whom he claims to hold for the requisite length of time to invest him with a possessory title.

It is not material to decide whether, when Owings purchased from Wilson and entered upon the fifty-acre tract patented to the latter, claiming to the boundaries of the three adjoining tracts patented to himself, his possession by operation of law extended to said boundaries.

The opinion of this court in the case of *Young v.*Withers, 8 Dana 165, seems to justify the conclusion that it did, but however this may be, when he sold to Willis Bagby, the latter entered under his deed, and not under the patents of Wilson and Owings.

If he claimed to the extent of the lands embraced by his deed, the boundaries being well marked and defined, then his possession was co-extensive with his claim, and limitation at once began to run in his favor as to all the land covered by the deed. Instructions Nos. 1 and 2, given at appellee’s instance, conform to this view of the law and are therefore approved. It follows that Instruction No. 1 asked for by appellant was properly refused. Under the pleadings and proof in the case appellant could not have been prejudiced by appellee’s third instruction as the right of recovery did not depend upon appellant’s title, but upon that of appellee. The second instruction asked by appellant was properly refused. Yeager could not be estopped by oral or written admissions made by his remote vendor, Willis Bagby, unless notice thereof was carried home to him before his purchase. Instruction No. 5 was much too favorable to appellant. Perceiving no valid objections to the ruling of the court, the judgment is *affirmed.*
The HON ORABLE JAMES M. ROSENBAUM, United States District Judge 1 for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of th e HONORABLE FRANKLIN L. NOEL, United States Ma gistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2713

___________ Dean Russell Clark, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. St. Paul Police Department, sued as * City of St. Paul Police, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 5, 1998 Filed: January 9, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Dean Russell Clark appeals from the district court & s order dismissing his civil 1 rights action with prejudi ce pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) and 41(b). After careful revie w of the record we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in-2-

dismissing the action for the reasons it stated. Acco rdingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.