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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000837896
<NAME>                        Enex 88-89 Income & Retirement Fund-Series 1, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         8055
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22897
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30952
<PP&E>                                         1578968
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1538641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 71279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          82057
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (10778)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   71279
<SALES>                                        20693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               20693
<CGS>                                          1047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9270
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. YARBROUGH

No. 138P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 420

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Mechanical Technology, Incorporated**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mechanical Technology, Incorporated (the “Company”) for the twelve month periods ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peng K. Lim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), that, to my knowledge:

 

| (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.           |
|   |                                                                                                                                                 |

 

 

 

|           |   |   |                    |
|----------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
| March 27, 2008 |   |   | /s/ Peng K. Lim         |
|           |   |   | Peng K. Lim             |
|           |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
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 of Synergetics USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pamela G. Boone, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary 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 my 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.





Dated: June 7, 2011





/s/ Pamela G. BoonePamela G. BooneExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Secretary
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

REGINALD A. WALKER,

Petitioner,

v.

SHEVAUN HARRIS, Secretary, Department of Children

and Family Services ; GENNA BRISSON; DONALD SAWYER;

JON CARNER; and EMILY SALEMA;

Respondents

.

No. 2D2023

- 2524

July 10, 2024

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial

Circuit for DeSoto County; sitting in its appellate capacity

.

Reginald A. Walker , pro se

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessica Schwieterman

, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent Shevaun

Harris.

No appearance for remaining Respondents.

PER CURIAM

.

Dismissed.

ROTHSTEIN

- YOUAKIM, SMITH , and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### I. L. Neal and Others *v.*J. L. Basket, etc.

Wills — Sufficiency of Instrument.

A paper held to be the last will and testament of the purported ■testator.

APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 28, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

■ The evidence in the case leaves no room to doubt the mental capacity of the devisor at the time and prior to the execution of the paper in controversy to make a valid and judicious disposition of his estate.

The contestants of the will or some of them, at least, have no right to question his general capacity to control and manage his business affairs, as the devisor, previous to his departure from the county of his residence (Shelby) for the state of Texas, had executed a paper purporting to be his last will, written by I. L. Neal, one of the beneficiaries therein, and now a contestant of the will admitted to probate.

There is no doubt but what the devisor’s brother," W. F. Neal, whilst the former was at the house of the latter in Texas, contributed *530to some extent to originate the hostility that James (the devisor) seems at that time to have entertained towards his brother, I. L. Neal.

*Middleton, Bullock, for appellants.*

*Harwood, for appellees.*

This, however, could not have been done with a view of obtaining from! James his estate, as the latter was then a vigorous and healthy young man, with a prospect of living as long as any of his brothers, and W. F. Neal could not then have well ánticipated the unfortunate difficulty that resulted in the death of his brother.

At the time the paper was executed those who: speak of the capacity of the testator have no doubt on that subject. The lawyer writing the will swears that it was dictated by the .devisor himself, and there is proof showing that he contemplated its execution some days previous to the time it was written.

The evidence fails to disclose any influence attempted to be exercised over the young man by his brother in procuring it’s execution and the result of the interviews between the two in regard to their relatives in Kentucky is arrived at more from conjecture than any facts shown in the cause.

There is nothing unnatural or unreasonable in the manner of this testamentary disposition of James Neal’s estate. His brother William seems to have been more needy than any of his other relatives and his marked affection for his niece prompted him to make her one'of the objects: of his bounty. The county judge, as well as the jury, all living in the same county where these parties were long known, have pronounced in favor of the validity of the paper and this strengthens the view taken of the case by the court based upon the testimony alone that the paper in controversy is the last will and testament of James D. Neal.

Judgment *affirmed.*
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1099V

UNPUBLISHED

ANTHONY NORMAN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: January 13, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for petitioner.

Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On July 30, 2019, Anthony Norman filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

January 25, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of 

the Office of Special Masters.

On January 11, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at

1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

SIRVA” and concludes that “[P]etitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation.”

Id. at 6. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7117
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELVIN ANTONIO BURL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-176, CA-03-444-02) Submitted: October 20, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Antonio Burl, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Melvin Antonio Burl seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. Burl’s § 2255 motion was received in the district court shortly after the expiration of the one-year limitations period. Under Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), and its progeny, a pr isoner’s § 2255 motion is considered filed as of the date he delivers it to prison officials for mailing. See Burns v. Morton , 134 F.3d 109, 112-13 (3d Cir. 1998). The record does not reveal when Burl delivered the motion for mailing to the court. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining when Burl delivered his motion to prison officials for mailing. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED
#### Harvey Sanders, etc., *v.*Daniel Wilson.

Reformation of Instruments — Mutual Mistake, Proof of.

Where relief is sought on account of mistake, the mistake must be established by proof that it was mutual, and must be shown to the satisfaction of the court.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE 'CHANCERY COURT.

March 20, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

That courts of equity have in some cases, on account of fraud or mistake,'departed from the rule which excludes parol evidence to vary, or control written contracts, even when they have been executed, and make them' conform to the true intention of the parties, is admitted. But if the relief be sought on account of mistake, it must be established that the mistake was mutual and the proof thereof must be clearly made out to the entire satisfaction of the court.

*573
      *James, Bush, Joyes, Hord, for appellant.*

*Pirtle & Caruth, D. English, for appellee.*

The evidence in this case fails to satisfy the requirements of the law. Mr. Barrett, the only witness who was examined on the subject of the alleged mistake, and who- was present at the time the deed complained of was executed, as counsel for A. G. Walthall, and assisted in preparing it, says: “I think the parties (referring to Mr. and Mrs. Walthall) understood the settlement theft made was a final settlement of that question, meaning the question of alimony. If there were any other matters in dispute between them, and then settled, I did not know it.” This evidence shows that the deed accomplished all that the parties then contemplated, omitting no part of their agreement. It results, therefore, that the judgment must be *affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION


         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A
(the "Report") of Lindsay Manufacturing Co. (the "Company") for the quarter
ended November 30, 2002, I, Bruce C. Karsk, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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/ BRUCE C. KARSK
          -------------------------------
          Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
          Bruce C. Karsk

          October 10, 2003

         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.








                                       25
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


First
Ottawa Bancshares Announces Dividend


 


Ottawa, Ill., November 14, 2005  —  The
Board of Directors of First Ottawa Bancshares, Inc. (Pink Sheets: FOTB.PK)
approved the payment of a $1.00 per share semi annual cash dividend and a $1.00
per share special cash dividend on the Company’s common stock. The combined
$2.00 per common share cash dividend marks the ninth consecutive year that this
semiannual payment has been declared.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 26, 2012

y0319 

# Order

March 26, 2012

143273

CITY OF RIVERVIEW, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143273 COA: 296431 CC: 09-0001000-MM STATE OF MICHIGAN and DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 12, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.02

                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patrick Hayward, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ML Futures Investments L.P.;

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

    a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
    ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
    consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
    prepared;

    b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
    procedures and such presented in this report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
    the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

    c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
    fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
    reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

    a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
    operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely
    affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
    financial information; and

    b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
    employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004
-----------------------

By /s/ PATRICK HAYWARD
   -------------------
Patrick Hayward
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

                                       17
Guidelines for the Standardization

of Comparison Documentation Page 1 of 1 Adopted 10/23/2008

GUIDELINES FOR THE STANDARDIZATION OF

COMPARISON DOCUMENTATION

1.0 Objective

The purpose of this document is to set forth a scientifically acceptable standard for

documenting, in a case record, the observations that support the reported

conclusion.

2.0 Procedures

2.1 The case record must contain documentation of observations that support a

reported conclusion.

2.2 At a minimum, the documentation must include depictions or descriptions of

the agreement or disagreement of individual and/or class characteristics to the

extent that another qualified firearm and toolmark examiner, without the

benefit of the evidence itself, can review the case record, understand what was

compared, and evaluate why the examiner arrived at the reported conclusion.

2.3 The supporting documentation of one comparison may be used for additional

evidence within a case, provided the agreement described or depicted is

representative of the additional comparison(s).

2.4 It must be documented in the case record which items are being depicted

and/or described.

2.5 Methods of documentation including imaging, narrative descriptions, sketches,

diagrams, charts, worksheets, tabulation of consecutive matching striae (CMS),

or a combination of the above methods may serve to satisfy the requirements

of this standard. (NOTE: The above mentioned documentation methods are not

sufficient for the determination or verification of a conclusion.)

3.0 References

1. AFTE Criteria for Identification (AFTE Journal Supplemental) Vol. 3, Issue 3,

August 2005.

2. ASCLD/LAB-International© Supplemental Requirements for the Accreditation of

Forensic Science Testing Laboratories; ISO17025 Program of Accreditation;

4.13.2.12; January 24, 2006.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Terel Devon Houston, * From the 118th District Court

 of Howard County,

 Trial Court No. 16916.

Vs. No. 11-24-00089-CR * June 13, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 30, 2021

NO. 03-21-00028-CV

Kerrie Renee Knauth, Appellant

v.

Jerry Knauth, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on January 8, 2021. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted her appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and 

in the court below.