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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         217,858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,135,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                    92,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,713,439
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,265,640
<PP&E>                                       3,174,554
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,663,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,976,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,747,337
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,180
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,221,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,976,652
<SALES>                                      9,279,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,279,743
<CGS>                                        6,208,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,208,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,700,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (963,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (257,066)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (706,241)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (706,241)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of China Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shane McMahon, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Broadband, Inc. and will be retained by China Broadband, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 November 22, 2010

/s/ Shane McMahonShane McMahon, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
10447.

#### HOBGOOD *v.*THE STATE.

An accusation of public indecency which, charged that the offense was committed by exposure of the private parts in a public place where the accused might have been seen by many persons, and was seen by named persons, was defective in not showing that the exposure itself was or might have been seen; and on general demurrer it should have been quashed. (Broyles, P. J., dissents.)

Decided September 19, 1919.

Accusation of public indecency; from city court of Tifton— Judge Price. March 10, 1919.

*John Henry Pool,*for plaintiff in error,

cited, as to accusation of *197public indecency: Penal Code (1910), § 381; *Morris*v. *State,*109 *Ga.*351; *Lockhart*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*557; *Gilmore*v. *State,*118 *Ga.*299, 301.

*J. S. Ridgdill, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The accusation in this ease charged that the accused “did commit the following acts of public indecency, consisting of the exposing of his private parts, in a public place, said public place being near the public bathing pool in the city of Tifton, said county, said exposure being where said R. Hobgood might have been seen by many persons, and where in fact where he, the said R. Hobgood, was seen by W. W. Reynolds, Jim Webb, Earnest Sellers, Willie Powell, Roy Sháw, and others.” To the accusation a demurrer was filed. The accusation is defective in that it alleges that the accused himself, instead of the *indecent exposure,*was seen by certain persons and might have been seen by others.

As the demurrer should have been sustained and the accusation quashed, the further proceedings were nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Stephens, J., concurs. Broyles, P. J., dissents.*
#### Jerry Earl WHITE, also known as Jerry Earl Grice, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Billy GARCIA, MR Reyna, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-40514.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 16, 2004.

*913Jerry Earl White, # 1086037, Cuero, TX, pro se.

William S. Helfand, Norman R. Giles, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerry Earl White, also known as Jerry Earl Grice, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants dismissing his civil-rights complaint alleging Fourth Amendment violations. White argues that the transcript of the trial held in state court shows that the defendants’ averments that he was arrested for state-law violations before he was searched are lies. He also argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint without considering his response to the summary-judgment motion.

The defendants’ affidavits averred that White had been stopped and arrested for traffic violations before the search incident to the arrest revealed the cocaine. The affidavits submitted by the defendants met their burden as the moving party of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact. *See Whren v. United States,*517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); *Gustafson v. Florida,*414 U.S. 260, 266, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973); *United States v. Thomas,*120 F.3d 564, 573 (5th Cir.1997). White’s response to the summary-judgment motion did not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment because he did not dispute that the defendants had pulled him over for a valid traffic stop, nor did it dispute the fact that the defendants had probable cause to arrest him for the traffic violations. *See Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,*37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc). Therefore, the district court was correct in granting the summary judgment motion.

Although in granting the summary-judgment motion, the district court initially overlooked White’s response, after White’s motion for relief from judgment, the district court considered White’s response and appropriately concluded that White had not carried his burden to defeat the summary-judgment motion. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited, circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRIAN M. BEAUCHAMP,

Appellant,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as successor to 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as trustee, and LOIS TAYLOR,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-2417

[April 12, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562007CA002162AXXXXHC.

Robert P. Summers and Jessica M. VanValkenburgh of McCarthy, 

Summers, Bobko, Wood, Norman, Bass & Melby, P.A., Stuart, for 

appellant.

Marc James Ayers of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, 

AL, and Brian M. Rolson of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Charlotte, 

N.C., for appellee The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as 

successor to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as trustee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

 

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 of Mechanical Technology Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cynthia A. Scheuer, Chief Financial 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:
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-2095

DANNY M. KELLY,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Selya, Circuit Judge,

Campbell and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.

Danny M. Kelly on brief pro se.

Leonard H. Kesten, Deidre Brennan Regan and Brody, Hardoon,

Perkins & Kesten on brief for appellee Town of Chelmsford.

June 14, 2001
Per Curiam. After affording plaintiff an

opportunity to file an amended complaint which "clearly and

concisely" set forth his claims, and after two hearings on

the matter, the district court granted defendants' motions

to dismiss. Reviewing the dismissal de novo in light of the

briefs and the record, we see no error. The complaint

failed to understandably state a cognizable claim for relief

and some of the relief demanded was not within the court's

jurisdiction. Plaintiff's memorandum response to the

court's order to clarify suggested that plaintiff was unable

or unwilling to cure the deficiencies. 

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.4


FAVRILLE,
INC.

STOCK OPTION GRANT NOTICE


 


ANNUAL GRANT

(2005
Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan)


FAVRILLE, INC. (the “Company”), pursuant to its 2005 Non-Employee
Directors’ Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), hereby grants to Optionholder an
option to purchase the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock set forth
below.  This option is subject to all of
the terms and conditions as set forth herein and in the Stock Option Agreement,
the Plan and the Notice of Exercise, all of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein in their entirety.


	
  Optionholder:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date of Grant:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Number of Shares
  Subject to Option:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Exercise Price
  (Per Share):

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total Exercise
  Price:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Expiration Date:

  	
   

  	
  The day before
  the 10th anniversary of the Date of Grant

  



 


	
  Type of
  Grant:

  	
   

  	
  Nonstatutory
  Stock Option

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Exercise
  Schedule:

  	
   

  	
  Same as Vesting
  Schedule

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Vesting
  Schedule:

  	
   

  	
  1/12th of
  the shares vest at the end of each month following the Date of Grant.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Payment:

  	
   

  	
  By one or a
  combination of the following items (described in the Stock Option Agreement):

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  o

  	
  By cash or check

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  o

  	
  Pursuant to a
  Regulation T Program if the Shares are publicly traded

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  o

  	
  By delivery of
  already-owned shares if the Shares are publicly traded

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  o

  	
  Net exercise if
  the Company has adopted FAS 123, as revised, and has established procedures
  for net exercise at the time of such exercise

  



 


Additional
Terms/Acknowledgements:  The undersigned Optionholder
acknowledges receipt of, and understands and agrees to, this Grant Notice, the
Stock Option Agreement and the Plan. 
Optionholder further acknowledges that as of the Date of Grant, this
Grant Notice, the Stock Option Agreement and the Plan set forth the entire
understanding between Optionholder and the Company regarding the acquisition of
stock in the Company and supersede all prior oral and written agreements on
that subject with the exception of (i) options previously granted and delivered
to Optionholder under the Plan, and (ii) the following agreements only:


	
  OTHER AGREEMENTS:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  



 


	
  FAVRILLE, INC.

  	
  OPTIONHOLDER:

  
	
   

  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Signature

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Signature

  	
   

  
	
   

  Title:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  Date:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  Date:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


ATTACHMENTS:                         Stock Option Agreement, 2005 Non-Employee Directors’
Stock Option Plan and Notice of Exercise
Exhibit 21  Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc.Subsidiaries As of December 31, 2008  Name
  
  State of
  Incorporation
  
  Percentage
  of OwnershipMaui Pineapple Company, Ltd.
  
  Hawaii
  
  100Kapalua Land Company, Ltd.
  
  Hawaii
  
  100Kapalua Realty Company, Ltd.
  
  Hawaii
  
  100Kapalua Advertising Company, Ltd.
  
  Hawaii
  
  100Kapalua Water Company, Ltd.
  
  Hawaii
  
  100Kapalua Waste Treatment Company, Ltd.
  
  Hawaii
  
  100Honolua Plantation Land Company, Ltd.
  
  Hawaii
  
  100Kapalua Bay Holdings, LLC
  
  Delaware
  
  51Kapalua Bay, LLC
  
  Delaware
  
  100   1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Queen Sand Resources, Inc.


We consent to the use of our report incorporated hereby by reference and to the
reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus.






                                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Dallas, Texas                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
April 16, 1998
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Exhibit 36 CERTIFICATION I, Peter Katevatis, Chief Executive Officer of
Mediscience Technology Corp., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mediscience Technology
Corp..;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: May 7, 2004                           Name: ss Peter Katevatis
                                            ------------------------
                                            Title: Peter Katevatis Esq.
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                                                              61
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 421 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.421

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
 To reauthorize the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict 
                   Resolution, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Environmental Policy and Conflict 
Resolution Advancement Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.

     Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 
(20 U.S.C. 5609) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting 
the following:
    ``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund 
established by section 10 $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 
through 2008, of which--
        ``(1) $3,000,000 shall be used to pay operations costs 
    (including not more than $1,000 for official reception and 
    representation expenses); and
        ``(2) $1,000,000 shall be used for grants or other appropriate 
    arrangements to pay the costs of services provided in a neutral 
    manner relating to, and to support the participation of non-Federal 
    entities (such as State and local governments, tribal governments, 
    nongovernmental organizations, and individuals) in, environmental 
    conflict resolution proceedings involving Federal agencies.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 32

  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Peter Lamoureux,
President of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of the Everest
Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), 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 Fund.


                             By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
                             --------------------------------------------
                             Name:    Peter Lamoureux
                                   --------------------------------------
                             Title:   Director, President and Treasurer
                                    -------------------------------------
                             May 10, 2004
10470.

#### Haverty Furniture Company *v.*Hunter.

Decided October 20, 1919.

Action for damages; from Fulton superior court—Judge Ellis. January 11, 1919.

*Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein, King & Spalding,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. U. Mooty, Brewster, Howell & Heyman,*contra.

■ Jenkins, P. J.

Even under the ruling in the ease of *Knight*v *Savannah Electric Co.,*20 *Ga. App.*314 (93 S. E. 17), as to which a question is now pending for determination by the Supreme Court in another case certified to that court by this court, it can not be said as a matter of law that in this case a judgment for the defendant was absolutely demanded. It therefore follows that the defendant can not; complain because the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, has seen proper to grant the motion of the plaintiff for the first grant of a new trial, thereby setting aside the judgment in the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery. If the plaintiff is entitled to recover at all, the evidence does not. demand that the verdict be limited to the amount named in the judgment. See *Parks*v. *Stevens,*21 *Ga. App.*180 (94 S. E. 60), and cases cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*