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

<ARTICLE>                                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      1,366
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                   43
<INVENTORY>                                   378
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,601
<PP&E>                                    108,121
<DEPRECIATION>                             52,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             61,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3,540
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       74
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       1,338
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                 20,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               61,808
<SALES>                                     9,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            9,538
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               9,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,495)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (105)
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,585)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.22)




</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Walter Industries, Inc.Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200218 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe accompanying Annual Report of Walter Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the“Report”), I, Victor P. Patrick, Director, Vice Chairman and General Counsel,Principal 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 complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: May 9, 2007 |     |                                          |
|------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------|
| * *               | * * | /s/ VICTOR  P.  PATRICK                       |
|                   |     | *Director, Vice Chairman and General Counsel* |
|                   |     | *Principal Executive Officer*                 |

 

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.8

                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-Q of Patriot Scientific
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended November 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jeffrey E. Wallin, 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, 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.

                                                    /S/ JEFFREY E. WALLIN
                                                    ---------------------
                                                    Name:  Jeffrey E. Wallin
                                                    Title:  President and CEO
                                                    Date: January 22, 2003
No. 16,102.

#### White *v.*The Board of Commissioners of Sullivan County.

*County.*— Liability *of for Failure of County Commissioners to Keep Jail*m *Healthy Condition.*— A county is not liable for the illness o£ a prisoner confined in its jail, caused by the failure of the county commissioners to keep the jail in a healthy condition.

From the Sullivan Circuit Court.

*W. G. Hultz,*for appellant.

*J. T. Beasley*and *A. B. Williams,*for appellee.

Elliott, J. —

The appellant alleges in his complaint that the appellee owns and controls the jail of Sullivan county that it is required by law to keep the jail in repair ; that it *397wrongfully and negligently failed to perform this duty, and suffered the jail to become damp and impure because of the noisome odors and air which emanated from a cesspool; that no outlet was provided for the escape of such noisome odors and air; that the wrongful breach of duty caused the appellant to become ill, and that from the illness so caused he suffered for many weeks.

The complaint does not state a cause of action against the county.

A county is one of the instrumentalities of government, and exercises delegated governmental functions. It is of very ancient origin. It was organized to give effect to the great principle of local self-government which forms such an important element of English' and American liberty — which is, indeed, the vitalizing and preserving element of constitutional freedom. See authorities collected in Elliott Roads and Streets, 325. The care of the county prison is committed to the county officers in order to enable the county to discharge its duties as a governmental subdivision. The governmental power under which the care and control of prisons fall is the great one commonly called *“*the police power.” In caring for prisons a county exercises part of this great power, by virtue of its delegation by the Legislature to it, and it is no more liable for the wrongful or negligent acts of the officers in immediate charge of a prison than is the State for the toi’tious conduct of officers placed in chai-ge of the prisons controlled by the State directly. We have not found it necessary to discuss the question before us, for the reason that it has been fully discussed in many cases. It is settled, and rightly settled, that for the negligence of officers, whose duties require an exercise of such a governmental power as the police power, neither a county nor a city is liable. Whether the wrong-doing officers are personally liable is quite another question. *Summers*v. *Board, etc.,*103 Ind. 262, and authorities cited; *Pfefferle v. Board, etc.,*39 Kan. 432; *Manuel*v. *Board, etc.,*98 N. C. 9; *Watson*v. *Preston,*30 W. Va. *398367; *Hollenbeck*v. *Winnebago,*95 Ill. 148; *Board, etc.,*v. *Mighels,*7 Ohio St. 109; *Kincaid*v. *Hardin County,*53 Iowa, 430; 2 Dillon Municipal Corp. (4th ed.), sections 957, 974.

Filed Oct. 13, 1891.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT NO. 11.1

CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED
     EARNINGS PER SHARE

For the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           1997              1996               1995
                                                       ------------      ------------      ------------
<S>                                                    <C>               <C>               <C>
Computation for Statements of Operations

Adjustment to net loss per statements
   of operations to amount used in loss per
   share computation:
      Net loss                                         $ (5,022,300)     $ (7,114,900)     $ (6,143,200)
      Add-interest on convertible debentures,
         net of tax effect                                       --               (A)               (A)
                                                       ------------      ------------      ------------

Net loss, as adjusted                                  $ (5,022,300)     $ (7,114,900)     $ (6,143,200)
                                                       ============      ============      ============

Adjustment to weighted average shares outstanding
   to amount used in loss per share computation:
      Weighted average shares outstanding                39,821,900        33,275,500        25,696,800
      Add-shares issuable from assumed exercise of
      convertible debentures                                     --               (A)               (A)
      Add-shares issuable from assumed exercise
      of options and warrants                                   (A)               (A)               (A)
                                                       ------------      ------------      ------------


Weighted average shares outstanding, as adjusted         39,821,900        33,275,500        25,696,800
                                                       ============      ============      ============


   Net loss per share                                  $      (0.13)     $      (0.21)     $      (0.24)
                                                       ============      ============      ============
</TABLE>


(A)  Effect is antidilutive, so amounts are not included in the loss per share
     calculation.
#### B. V. Brewer and Others *v.*H. Peters, Ex’r.

Parties — Defect of — Objection.

If a suit is objectionable by reason of defects of parties or other informalities, the objection should 'be made at the time, and not in a collateral proceeding.

Pleading — Knowledge of Contents.

A plea of ignorance of tihe contents of a petition by parties who were served with; process in a former suit can avail nothing, where the petition was on file in the clerk’s office, and subject to inspection.

Judgment — Who May Attack.

In a suit against a church, members who are not included in the suit can not attack the judgment.

APPEAL FROM MERGER CIRCUIT COURT.

December 8, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The judgment rendered in July, 1868, is final between the parties to the present controversy. If that suit was objectionable by reason of a defect of parties, or other informalities, the objection should have been made at the time and not in a collateral proceeding like this. The judgment is certainly not void, and if this was a proper proceeding to revise it, there is no evidence of any fraud on the part of the appellee. Much proof is taken to show a want of authority in the trustee to purchase the property of Peters, and for which the judgment sought to be reformed was obtained.

These trustees -were members of that church, and although they deny all authority to purchase, we can not concede that they made the contract with the appellee with no intention of paying, him. If they were sued individually for the debt, their answer would be that they purchased it for the church and held it as church property, and this is true. How, then, can the church escape liability. It is no answer to allege that these trustees, who were members of the church and served with process in the suit of July, 1868, were ignorant of what that petition contained. It was on file in the clerk’s office, and no concealment made of its contents. It was their duty as trustees and as members of the church whose property was sought to be subjected, to malee defense and to know the nature and char*61acter of the claim asserted against them. Every defense relied on also should have been pleaded in the former suit, and the only ground relied on for annulling that judgment is that the defendants neglected to make any defense to the action, believing that it was only a suit to enforce the vendor’s lien. If the defendants in the original suit had been proceeded against not as trustees but as members of the church alone, the result would have been the same. Those members not included in the suit could not attack the judgment, for the reason that they were not parties. Those sued had an interest in the property and were proceeded against as the representatives of the church and the objection should have been made by those ini that proceeding.

*T. C. Bell, for appellants.*

*Polk, for appellee.*

Judgment *affirmed.*

*62
      *Attorney General, for appellant.*
O pinion filed July 25 , 2019



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ ___ ____ No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 073

- C V

____ __ ____ IN THE INTEREST OF K

. A

. S

. , A C HILD

On Appeal from the 326 th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 9110

- CX

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the parental rights of K.A.S. ’ s mother and father

. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.001 (b) (West Supp. 201 8 ). The mo ther filed a notice of appeal. We affirm

. Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and conclude s that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403
, 406

– 08 (Tex. Crim.2 App. 2008); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a holding by the Texas Supreme Court, ho wever, an Anders motion to
withdraw “ may be premature ” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in
P.M. stated that “ a ppointed counsel ’ s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition
for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. ” I d. at 27

– 28. Appellant ’ s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the
motion to withdraw

. Counsel also informed Ap pellant o f h er right to review the
record and file a pro se response to counsel ’ s brief. In compliance with Kelly v.
State , 436 S.W.3d 313
, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant
with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. W e conclude that Appellant ’ s counsel has satisfied his dut ies under Anders
, Schulman , and Kelly

. We note that Appellant has not f ile d a pro se response to counsel ’ s Anders
brief. F ollowing the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record in this cause , and we agree that the appeal is
frivolous

. However, in light of P.M. , we must deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by the mo ther ’ s court

- appointed counsel. See P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27

. Accordingly, we deny the motion for withdraw al of counsel, and we affirm
the trial court ’ s order of termination

.

PER CURIAM July 25 , 2019
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1 Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from unaudited
interim statements for the three months ended August 31, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such quarterly report on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended August 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         557,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    145,363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               758,909
<PP&E>                                         577,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                 295,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,645,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          176,648
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,831,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,645,654
<SALES>                                          2,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,093
<CGS>                                            1,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               565,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (559,651)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (559,651)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (559,651)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE **

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002 **

**STUDIO      ONE MEDIA, INC. **

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                           |                                                    |                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           | **STUDIO                ONE MEDIA, INC.**               |
|                                      |                                               |                                                 |
| Date:  *May                15, 2007* | By:                                           | /s/                 *Preston                J. Shea* |
|                                           | *Preston                J. Shea*                        |
|                                           | *President                and Chief Accounting Officer* |
EXHIBIT (21)
			     THE MIDLAND COMPANY
			       AND SUBSIDIARIES
		EXHIBIT (21) - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
			      DECEMBER 31, 1995

	The subsidiaries of the Registrant as of December 31, 1995, all of which
are included in the consolidated financial statements, are as follows:
								   Percentage
						State of            of Voting
					      Incorporation        Stock Owned
					      -------------        -----------
M/G Transport Services, Inc.                       Ohio                 100
Midland-Guardian Co.                               Ohio                 100
MGT Services, Inc.                                 Ohio                 100
Inland Marine Brokerage Company                    Ohio                 100
M/G Securities, Inc.                               Ohio                 100
CS Crable Sportswear, Inc.                         Ohio                 100
MGT River Services, Inc.                           Ohio                 100

SUBSIDIARIES OF MIDLAND-GUARDIAN CO.

American Modern Insurance Group, Inc.              Ohio                 100
Marbury Agency, Inc.                               Ohio                 100

SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN INSURANCE GROUP, INC.

American Modern Home Insurance Co.                 Ohio                 100
American Family Home Insurance Co.                Florida               100
Atlas Insurance Agency, Inc.                       Ohio                 100
American Modern Life Insurance Company             Ohio                 100
Midwest Enterprises, Inc.                         Florida               100
Lloyds Modern Corporation                          Texas                100
American Modern Home Service Company               Ohio                 100

SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE CO.

American Modern Lloyds Insurance Co.               Texas                100
American Southern Home Insurance Co.              Florida               100
American Western Home Insurance Co.              Oklahoma               100
Guardian Underwriters Insurance Company, Inc   Pennsylvania             100

SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN WESTERN HOME INSURANCE CO.

American Modern Life Insurance Company of 
  Arizona, Inc.                                   Arizona               100


      The names of two wholly-owned subsidiaries of The Midland Company are not 
shown above as such individual listing is not required.

				      15

<PAGE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Volmar Construction, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W9I2QR-12-C-0074 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 60634, 60635, 61098 

Richard T. Garofalo, Esq. 

Garity, Graham, Murphy, Garofalo 

& Flinn, P.C. 

East Hanover, NJ 

Michael P. Goodman, Esq; 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Carlton A. Arnold, Esq. 

R. Lauren Homer, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: August 13, 2018 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

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 Nos. 60634, 60635, 61098, Appeals of 

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

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals