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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         174,163
<SECURITIES>                                   155,368
<RECEIVABLES>                                  355,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (28,081)
<INVENTORY>                                    233,972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               949,446
<PP&E>                                       2,358,109
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,067,927)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,774,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,076,584
<BONDS>                                        135,243
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       759,609
<OTHER-SE>                                     496,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,774,851
<SALES>                                      1,806,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,806,351
<CGS>                                        1,335,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,335,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,949
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                294,234
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (112,258)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            181,976
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   181,976
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.54
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 13

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 32-16 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:376
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 32-16 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:377
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 32-16 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:378
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 32-16 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:379
Exhibit 23

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-134730, 333-76817, 333-72841 and 333-41863) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-134002, 333-121868 and 333-112464) of Mechanical Technology Incorporated of our report dated March 9, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

Albany, New York

March 9, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                          16,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  250,322
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    187,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               659,045
<PP&E>                                       1,858,780
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,327,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,345,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,672,101
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           411
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,215,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,345,311
<SALES>                                      1,108,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,108,022
<CGS>                                          683,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  683,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,278,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             453,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,303,512)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,303,512)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,303,512)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 11-3517

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Nhan Nguyen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

____________ Submitted: November 12, 2012 Filed: November 29, 2012 [Unpublished]

____________ SMITH, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Nhan Nguyen pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute more than fifty grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),841(b)(1)(B)(viii), and 846, and the District Court 1 sentenced Nguyen to 125 months in prison. On appeal, Nguye n challenges his sentence, ar guing that the court erred in adopting a base-offense level of 32 as r ecommended in the Presentence Investigation Report without requiring the government to prove by reliable evidence a quantity of methamphetamine attributable to him thatsupports a base-offe nse level of 32 under the drug-quantity table at §2D1.1 of th e U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We need not address Nguyen’s argument that the District Court’s drug-quantity calculation was flawed because Nguyen’s sentence was based not on the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to him but on the court’s conclusion that Nguyen is a career offender—a conclusion that Nguye n does not challengeon appeal. See United States v. Gaddy , 532 F.3d 783, 790 (8th Cir.) (“[W]e need not determine whether sufficient evidence supports the district court’s finding because the drug quantity finding was superseded by [the defendant’s] st atus as a career offender.”), cert. denied , 555 U.S. 1019 (2008); cf. United States v. Adams , 154 F. App’x 562 (8th Cir. 2005) (unpublished per curiam) (holding that district court’s error in drug-quantity calculation was harmless give n defendant’s career-offender status). Thus, even if Nguyen’s base-offense leve l had been determined on the lesser quantity of methamphetamine that Nguyen argues is attributable to him, his sentencing range under the advisory guidelines would still be driven by the higher base-offense level applicable to Nguyen as a career offender. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1. Accordingly, we reject Nguyen’s argument and affirm the judgment of the District Court.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                       436
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,956
<PP&E>                                          14,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,876
<BONDS>                                         63,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            74
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,937
<SALES>                                         53,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,131
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,094
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001059262
<NAME> AP HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,743)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,331
<PP&E>                                          79,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,460
<BONDS>                                        204,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,091
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (94,529)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,234
<SALES>                                        123,699
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,699
<CGS>                                           97,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,076
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,046)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,329)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,329)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### RATLEY CONSTRUCTION CO. v. RICHMOND COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

No. 170P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 421

Motion by defendant (Richmond Co.) for temporary stay allowed 28 April 1997. Temporary stay dissolved and petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





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 Annual Report of True North Energy Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John I,
      Folnovic, Chief Executive 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, 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.





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





/s/
                John FolnovicName:
                John I. FolnovicTitle:
                Chief Executive OfficerDate:
                July 29, 2008
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of GFI Group Inc.  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 GFI Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Gooch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



Date: March 16, 2011/s/ MICHAEL GOOCH Michael Gooch Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steven N. Fischer, certify that:

- I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mechanical Technology Incorporated; - 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; 	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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible 
	for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
#### P. Taylor, etc., *v.*James Bassett.

Appeal — Dismissal.

Where there is no bill of evidence certified to the Court of Appeals in an appeal from the county court of a road case, the appeal will be dismissed, since the case stands on the same basis as appeals from judgments of the circuit court to the Court of Appeals from a proceeding admitting or rejecting probate of wills.

APPEAL PROM! WEBSTER CIRCUIT COURT.

January 18, 1873.

*M. C. Given, for appellants.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

This case originated in the county court and after appellee had succeeded in that court appellants prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court, and on motion of appellee that court dismissed the appeal,, and appellants have brought the case to this court.

In *Helm, etc., v. Short, etc., 7*Bush 623, this court held that in appeals in road cases.from a judgment of a county to the circuit court, the case does not stand on the docket, nor is it to- be tried as on original action, nor as if no judgment had been rendered. Appeals in such-cases occupy the attitude in circuit courts that appeals from judgments of circuit courts admitting to record or rejecting a will, occupy in the court of appeals. Both law and- fact may be tried by the circuit court, but it can not hear and determine any fact which is not certified from the county court. And as there was no bill of evidence certified by the county court to the circuit court in this case the appeal was properly dismissed by that court.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*

-, *for appellee.*
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned officers of NeuroMetrix, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K to which this certification is attached (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                     |  |                                                                                                
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  | /s/SHAI N. GOZANI, M.D., PH.D.Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer and President
|                     |  | /s/W. BRADFORD SMITHW. Bradford Smith Chief Financial Officer                                  

This
certification is being furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any document for any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Securities Act of
1933.

---



QuickLinks
#### THE STATE ex rel. WILSON, Collector, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF JOPLIN, Appellant.

In Banc,

March 23, 1904.

TAXATION: Assessment Against Bank. The judgment in this case, which was for personal taxes assessed against a national hank, and not against its stockholders, is reversed on the authority of State ex rel. v. Bank, 180 Mo. 717.

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — *Hon. Jos. D. PerMns,*Judge.

Reversed.

ROBINSON, C. J.

This is an action by the collector of Jasper county against defendant, the First National Bank of Joplin, to collect certain personal taxes, amounting to $1,337.87, claimed to be due to the State and county for the year 1901, on account of an assessment against its shares of stock. The case was tried by the court, and a judgment rendered in favor *4of the plaintiff, and is brought here on defendant’s appeal.

The case in all its essential features is like that of State ex rel. Wilson v. First National Bank of Carterville, 180 Mo. 717.

Upon the authority of and for the reasons set out in the case of State ex rel. Wilson v. First National Bank of Carterville, supra, the judgment of the circuit court herein should be reversed, and it is so ordered.

*Marshall, Gantt, Burgess, Valliant*and *Fox, JJ.,*concur ; *Brace, J.,*dissents.
1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00356-CR

__________________

STACY LAZARD ROGERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR21-0013

_______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Stacy Lazard Rogers appeals his conviction for assault family violence with 

previous conviction, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 

22.01(b)(2)(A). Afterfiling the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney 

to represent Rogers in his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to 

Rogers by filing an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

In the brief, Rogers’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible 

errors to be addressed in Rogers’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 
2

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional 

evaluation of the record. In the brief, Rogers’s attorney explains why, under the 

record in Rogers’s case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. 

Id. Rogers’s attorney also represented that he sent Rogers a copy of the brief and the 

record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified 

Rogers, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or 

before October 6, 2023. Rogersresponded that he would file a pro se brief; however, 

Rogers never filed a brief.

When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to independently 

examine the record and determine whether the attorney assigned to represent the 

defendant has a non-frivolous argument that would support the appeal. Penson v. 

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). After reviewing the 

clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no 

arguable grounds to support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the 

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for 

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. Id. at 

826. For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney 
3

to re-brief the appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991).

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.1

AFFIRMED.

 KENT CHAMBERS

 Justice

Submitted on June 26, 2024

Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024

Do Not Publish 

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1Rogers may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.