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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         143,205
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 20,007,498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,070,202
<PP&E>                                       4,346,763
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,764,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,303,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,450,115
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,611
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,724,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,303,611
<SALES>                                    107,851,541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           107,851,541
<CGS>                                       64,145,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               96,022,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,088,973
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,659,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,429,473
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,429,473
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61


</TABLE>
| Date:       March      31, 2009 | By:    | /S/      CHARLES E. HURWITZ                         |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |   | Charles      E. HurwitzChief      Executive Officer |

| Date:       March      31, 2009 | By:    | /S/      M. EMILY MADISON                         |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |   | M.      Emily MadisonChief      Financial Officer |

----
#### GOODE v. JENKINS

No. 10A94-3

Case below: 341 N.C. 513

Johnston County Superior Court

Petition by plaintiff for writ of supersedeas and motion for temporary stay denied 27 June 1997. Petition by plaintiff for writ of prohibition to prohibit order of the Honorable Knox V. Jenkins, Jr. denied 27 June 1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                             64   
<SECURITIES>                                      282   
<RECEIVABLES>                                     169   
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0   
<INVENTORY>                                      1276   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0         
<PP&E>                                           2134        
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (857)      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4676        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0      
<BONDS>                                             0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             210   
<PREFERRED>                                         0   
<COMMON>                                            1   
<OTHER-SE>                                         67         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4676           
<SALES>                                          2270            
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2694            
<CGS>                                            2067            
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2067            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1112         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 86         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (571)         
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (214)        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (357)        
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0        
<CHANGES>                                           0    
<NET-INCOME>                                    (357)   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (9.39)   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (9.39)   
        

</TABLE>
#### George P. Chapman v. John Clark, drain com’r and Charles F. Maynard, township clerk.

*Proceedings to lay out a ditch*— Venire *to jury*— •Oath—Accuracy *of descrip tion %n condemnation proceedings.*

Proceedings to lay out a public ditch are void if the *venire*for the jury summoned to pass upon its necessity does not give its dimensions or identify its course with some precision.

Where the oath administered to the jury in proceedings to lay out a ditch, does not specify the line of the ditch or its dimensions, but refers to it merely as- “Pine Creek Ditch No. 2,” it is insufficient, as it does not apply to a ditch of any specific character and predeter mined location.

Certiorari.

Submitted Oct. 6.

Decided Oct. 18.

*306*Geer <& Williams*for plaintiff in *certiorari.*

*P. E. Taylor*and *J. B. Moore*for def’ts in *certiorari.*

Graves, O. J.

This is a *certiorari*to review proceedings of the drain commissioner of the township of Lapeer to locate and construct a ditch generally known as Pine Creek Ditch No. 2. The proceedings were had under the law of 1875, Pub. Act No. 140. The record discloses numerous errors, but it is needless to refer to more than one or two. No attempt was made to give the dimensions of the ditch in the *venire:*A line was referred to, but that was not identified with any precision. It could only be made definite by supposing it was to follow the meanderings of the creek, but it is admitted that in fact it was not run out in accordance with that construction. This fault in *the-venire*was fatal. *Kroop v. Forman*31 Mich. 144.

According to the evidence in the record the oath administered to the jury did not point out the liue of the ditch nor specify its dimensions, but referred to it merely as “Pine Creek Ditch No. 2.” There is consequently no proper proof of record that their oath applied to a projected ditch of any specific character and predetermined location, and yet it was necessary that it should.

Without noticing other defects it is plain that these must compel us to quash the proceedings.

The other Justices concurred.
10343.

#### Georgia Railway and Power Company *v.*Ryan *et al.*Southern Wood Preserving Company *v.*Ryan *et al.*

10345.

Decided October 20, 1919.

Actions for damages; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Beid. December 7, 1918.

*Colquitt & Conyers, E. V. Carter, E. V. Carter Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Alexander MacDougald, Hewlett & Dennis,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The law of these cases is settled by the rulings made in the case of *Georgia Ry. & Power Co.*v. *Ryan,*ante, 289.

2. Tlie're was sufficient evidence to authorize the court to submit to the jury the questions as to the plaintiff’s right to recover for necessary expenses consisting of reasonable physician’s bills incurred by him in consequence of the injuries sustained by his minor daughter; and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict rendered, covering this element of damages, as well as the loss by the plaintiff of the services of his minor daughter during her minority. The court did not err, therefore, in overruling either of the motions for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed in each ease.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 
 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Scientific Corporation (the Company) for the period ended August 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lowell W. Giffhorn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 ****By:
/s/ Jeffrey E. WallinJeffrey E. WallinPresident and CEOOctober 20, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4109 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4109

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 2004

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To allow seniors to file their Federal income tax on a new Form 1040S.

    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 ``Simple Tax for Seniors Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. FORM 1040S FOR SENIORS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's 
delegate) shall make available a form, to be known as ``Form 1040S'', 
for use by individuals to file the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Such form shall be as similar as 
practicable to Form 1040EZ, except that--
            (1) the form shall be available to individuals who have 
        attained age 65 as of the close of the taxable year,
            (2) the form may be used even if income for the taxable 
        year includes--
                    (A) social security benefits (as defined in section 
                86(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
                    (B) distributions from qualified retirement plans 
                (as defined in section 4974(c) of such Code), annuities 
                or other such deferred payment arrangements,
                    (C) interest and dividends, or
                    (D) capital gains and losses taken into account in 
                determining adjusted net capital gain (as defined in 
                section 1(h)(3)), and
            (3) the form shall be available without regard to the 
        amount of any item of taxable income or the total amount of 
        taxable income for the taxable year.
    (b) Effective Date.--The form required by subsection (a) shall be 
made available for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 2, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FLORIDA CITIZENS’ ALLIANCE, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-934

[August 17, 2023]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth

Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Janet C. Croom, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 2022-CA-970.

Brantley Oakey of The Law Office of Brantley Oakey, Naples, for 

appellant.

Jeffrey D. Slanker, Mitchell J. Herring, and Matthew J. Carson of 

Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3339

_____________________________

NASTASHA HART,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

July 12, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Candice Kaye Brower, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional 

Counsel, and Melissa J. Ford, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                 Subsidiaries:

     PrimeEnergy Management Corporation, a New York corporation 100% owned by
     PrimeEnergy Corporation

     Prime Operating Company, a Texas corporation 100% owned by PrimeEnergy
     Corporation

     Eastern Oil Well Service Company, a West Virginia corporation 100% owned by
     PrimeEnergy Corporation

     Southwest Oilfield Construction Company, an Oklahoma corporation, 100%
     owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation
Exhibit 99.3

                    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 Maui Land & Pineapple
Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary L. Gifford,
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 result of
operations of the Company.


/S/ GARY L. GIFFORD
Gary L. Gifford
President & Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2003
Guidelines: Criteria Adopted 04/16/2008

for Identification Page 1 of 2 Revised 06/04/2012

Guidelines: Criteria for Identification

1.0 Objective

The laboratory shall adopt a Criteria for Identification as it pertains to the

firearm/toolmark discipline.

2.0 Procedures

2.1 The laboratory shall include in their protocol a Criteria for Identification

that is generally accepted by members of the forensic firearms

community.

2.2 SWGGUN endorses the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark

Examiners (AFTE) “Theory of Identification” definition as set forth in

the AFTE Journals (July 1992 Volume 24, Number 3 and Fall 2011 Vol.

43, No. 4) to be the generally accepted Criteria for Identification:

2.2.1 The theory of identification as it pertains to the comparison of

toolmarks enables opinions of common origin to be made when

the unique surface contours of two toolmarks are in “sufficient

agreement.”

2.2.2 This “sufficient agreement” is related to the significant

duplication of random toolmarks as evidenced by the

correspondence of a pattern or combination of patterns of

surface contours. Significance is determined by the comparative

examination of two or more sets of surface contour patterns

comprised of individual peaks, ridges and furrows. Specifically,

the relative height or depth, width, curvature and spatial

relationship of the individual peaks, ridges and furrows within

one set of surface contours are defined and compared to the

corresponding features in the second set of surface contours.

Agreement is significant when the agreement in individual

characteristics exceeds the best agreement demonstrated

between toolmarks known to have been produced by different

tools and is consistent with agreement demonstrated by

toolmarks known to have been produced by the same tool. The

statement that “sufficient agreement” exists between two

toolmarks means that the agreement of individual

characteristics is of a quantity and quality that the likelihood

another tool could have made the mark is so remote as to be

considered a practical impossibility.
Guidelines: Criteria Adopted 04/16/2008

for Identification Page 2 of 2 Revised 06/04/2012

2.2.3 Currently the interpretation of individualization/identification is

subjective in nature, founded on scientific principles and based

on the examiner’s training and experience.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                        10
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                10
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         488,629
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   7,994
<COMMON>                      432,948
<OTHER-SE>                    (929,561)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  10
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              29,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (29,957)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (29,957)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.04)
        


</TABLE>
10288.

#### Jackson *v.*Chambers.

Decided October 20, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Carrollton—Judge Beall. December 10, 1918.

The demurrer was on the ground that the suit “is based on torts, if any there be, arising both ex contractu and ex delicto.-” The petition alleges that the defendant has injured and damaged the plaintiff in the sum of $800, as shown by the facts set forth. According to the petition, the plaintiff was a cropper of the defendant for the year 1917, under a contract the terms of which are set out, and after the plaintiff had completed his work in the cultivation of the crop in compliance with the contract, the defendant, without cause, refused to allow him to complete the harvesting of the crop, and by threats of taking his life forced him to move from the premises and to accept in settlement of the amount due him by the defendant a stated sum which was much less than his share under the contract. A statement of the value of the crop, the cost *286of making it, and of deductions which should be made from its value, is given in the petition, showing a named sum to be due the plaintiff, and it is alleged that “the balance of the damages sued for, to wit $800.00, are made up on account of aggravated circumstances in said case.”

*285Rtepiiens, J.

The petition in this case plainly sot out an action for damages sounding in tort, and the recital therein of a contract may be treated merely as showing the relationship of the parties. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer interposed and in dismissing the petition. *Paine*v. *Watters,*9 *Ga. App.*265 (70 S. E. 1114).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*

*286
      *Emmett Smith, Buford Boykin,*for plaintiff.

*Leon Ilood,.II. 0. Strickland,*for defendant.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-02T08:11:38Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-02T08:11:40Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-02T08:11:40Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="50313">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-02T08:11:38Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 
</p>
<p>AUSTIN </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>