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

<ARTICLE>     5
<CIK>     0000837913
<NAME>     GENUS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                        7397
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                10439
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (499)
<INVENTORY>                                   4362
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             22097
<PP&E>                                       26418
<DEPRECIATION>                              (22075)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               26758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6395
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    100730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (80367)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 26758
<SALES>                                      13918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             13918
<CGS>                                         8099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                14525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (432)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (432)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (432)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.02)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I,Steven Tanner, certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc.;

 

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

 

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this Report;

 

4.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;

 

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this Report based on such evaluation; and

 

----

 

c)Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: March23, 2005

 
| /s/ Steven Tanner       |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Steven Tanner           |   |
|                    |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  286,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               408,131
<PP&E>                                       1,762,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                   94637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,143,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,502,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       318,303
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  56,664,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,143,296
<SALES>                                        360,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,342,431
<CGS>                                          230,564
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,662,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             278,189 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                164,220 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            164,220 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   164,220
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .005
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .005
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4427

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ‘‘Perry B. 

Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2004

Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. KING of New York, 

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. MEEKS of New 

York, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. WEINER, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. 

OWENS, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. RANGEL, 

Mr. SERRANO, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. SWEENEY, 

Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. 

WALSH, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. QUINN, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mr. HOUGHTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New 

York, as the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERRY B. DURYEA, JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in 
2

•HR 4427 IH 

1 Montauk, New York, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the Perry B. Duryea, Jr. 

7 Post Office.

Æ
#### P. C. Broyles *v.*Wm. Moffet’s Adm’r.

Husband and Wife — Husband's Death — Liability of Wife’s Property.

The court will not interfere after the death, of both, husband and wife to apply the proceeds' of property belonging to the wife to the payment of the husband’s debts.

Husband and Wife, — Notes—Burden of Proof.

■ The burden is on one who seeks to apply notes executed to the wife to the payment of the huistband’s 'debts, to- show that the notes were executed for property or money belonging to the estate of the husband.

APPEAL FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 24, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

There is absolutely no evidence tending to show that the $295 on hand at the time of Mrs. Moffet’s death1 did not belong to her.

The note on Craycraft & Montgomery for $337 was given for bacon and a few other small articles, including a stov'e. Craycraft did not know whether the purchases were made at the sale of .the effects of W. G. Moffet’s estate or at the sale made by Mrs. Moffet. The meat set apart to Mrs. Moffet was nearly all sold on the day *389of the sale made by her deceased husband’s administrator; other of her household property was also sold at the same time at the price at which bacon sold 20 to 25 cents per pound, such quantity as would likely be set apart to the widow would sell for three hundred dollars. It is not impossible that this note was given for Mrs. Moffet’s property, and the testimony does not require us to conclude that it was not.

*W. H. Hays, for appellant.*

*Ray & Walker, for appellees.*

The note of Booker for $27 stands upon about the same footing with that of Craycraft and Montgomery. The note for $300 on Covington was given to Mrs. Moffet during the life of her husband, and with his consent for a piano which belonged to her before her marriage. Moffet was not compelled to reduce this piano to his possession. He had the right to allow his wife to retain it as her individual property, notwithstanding their marriage, and as he seems to have done -so, the courts will not after the death of both the husband and wife, interfere to apply the proceeds to the payment of the husband’s debts.

For the same reasons the note given for the hire of one of Mrs. Moffet’s negroes for the year 1865 was held to- be part of her estate.

There is not sufficient testimony to establish that the note on Noe for $37, the note on D. Moffet for $100, or the note on Mitchell for $300, or either of them were given for property or money belonging to the estate of W. G. Moffet, and the onus was upon appellant to make out his case as to each of the items set up'by him-.

The rents of the house and lot adjudged to be subject to the payment of W. G. Moffet’s debts inured to the benefit of his heirs, and were not assets in the hands of his administrator.

Perceiving no error in the judgment of the circuit court it is *affirmed.*

In this case Chief Justice Hardin did not sit.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I, Stephen M. Shea, Chief Financial Officer of Mestek, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, of Mestek, Inc. (the “registrant”); 

 

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(s) 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 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; and 

 

 (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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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 the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting 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: April 3, 2006
|   | /s/  Stephen M. Shea             |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Stephen M. Shea 
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 427

To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the sale in certain States of gasoline 

from other regions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the sale in certain 

States of gasoline from other regions, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fuel Price Stability 

5 Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SALE OF GASOLINE FROM OTHER REGIONS. 

7 Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act is amended by 

8 adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof: 

9 ‘‘(11) WAIVER IN CASE OF SIGNIFICANT PRICE

10 INCREASES.—The Governor of Illinois, Indiana, or 
2

•HR 427 IH 

1 Wisconsin may issue an order allowing any person to 

2 sell or dispense, for a specified period, in any cov3 ered area in any such State conventional gasoline or 

4 reformulated gasoline that is not certified by the Ad5 ministrator for that covered area if—

6 ‘‘(A) such gasoline is certified by the Ad7 ministrator for sale in any other region of the 

8 country; and 

9 ‘‘(B) the Governor finds that reduced 

10 availability of reformulated gasoline certified by 

11 the Administrator for the covered area con12 cerned has resulted in, or is likely to result in, 

13 a significant price increase for reformulated 

14 gasoline in that covered area.’’.

Æ
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAULA K. STONE,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BAYER CORPORATION DISABILITY

PLANS, erroneously sued as Bayer

Corporation Long Term Disability Plan, an

employee welfare benefit plan and

BAYER CORPORATION, an Indiana

corporation,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 10-35665

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00356-BR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2011** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUL 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Defendants appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

Plaintiff’s favor. For the reasons stated in the district court’s well-written and

well-reasoned Opinion and Order of January 15, 2010, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
10435.

#### Martin *&*Son *v.*Harrison.

Broyles, P. J.

1. The purchaser of a horse or mule is not entitled to a rescission of the trade unless he shows, among other things, actual fraud on the part of the vendor; or unless he shows, among other things, a *118special agreement between the parties, as a part of the contract, that if the animal proved to be unsound the purchaser should have the right to return it to the vendor and rescind the trade. *Stovall*v. *McBrayer,*20 *Ga. App.*93 (92 S. E. 543).

Decided July 22, 1919.

Action for breach of warranty; from city court of Hall county— Judge Wheeler. February 17, 1919.

*B. P. Caillard Jr.,*for plaintiffs.

*W. A. Charters,*contra.

2. Under the above rulings and the facts of the instant case, the plaintiff in the lower court, the purchaser of the mule, was not entitled to a rescission of the trade, and the court did not err in awarding a nonsuit.

3. Under the particular facts of this case, it is immaterial whether the court erred in disallowing the proffered amendment to the petition. The original petition set out, in substance, that the plaintiff was entitled to a rescission of the trade because of actual fraud on the part of the defendant. The proffered amendment set out in substance that the plaintiff was entitled to a rescission of the trade (irrespective of actual fraud on the part of the defendant) because of an agreement entered into by the parties, as a part of the contract, that if the mule proved to be unsound the plaintiff would have the right to return it and rescind the trade. It appears from the bill of exceptions that the amendment was offered after all the evidence for the plaintiff had been presented, and it is alleged therein that the amendment “was germane and adjusted to the facts as developed by the testimony in said case.” This allegation is not “adjusted to the facts as developed by the testimony.” If the amendment had been allowed, it would not have been supported by the evidence adduced, and a nonsuit would still have been proper.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., coneur.*
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 Magnitude  Information Systems,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended June 30, 2004 (the "Form
10-QSB"), I, Steven D. Rudnik, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
as of the date hereof,  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,  the Company's  Form 10-QSB fully complies with the  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Security  Exchange  Act of 1934  and that the
information  contained  in the Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 12, 2004                 By: /s/ Steven D. Rudnik
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Steven D. Rudnik
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4149 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4149

 To amend the Small Business Act to permit business concerns that are 
   owned by venture capital operating companies or pension plans to 
     participate in the Small Business Innovation Research Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2004

    Mr. Graves (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Inslee, and Mrs. Kelly) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
  Small Business, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Small Business Act to permit business concerns that are 
   owned by venture capital operating companies or pension plans to 
     participate in the Small Business Innovation Research Program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SBIR AWARDS TO BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED BY VENTURE CAPITAL 
              OPERATING COMPANIES OR EMPLOYEE BENEFIT OR PENSION PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 9(f) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
638(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Eligibility.--A business concern shall not be 
        prevented from participating in the Small Business Innovation 
        Research Program solely because such business concern is owned 
        in part by--
                    ``(A) a venture capital operating company that is 
                managed and controlled by 1 or more United States 
                citizens or permanent resident aliens; or
                    ``(B) an employee benefit or pension plan.''.
    (b) Rulemaking Authority.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall issue regulations to--
            (1) carry out the amendment made by subsection (a);
            (2) ensure that a Small Business Innovation Research award 
        is not given to a business concern that is majority owned by--
                    (A) another business concern that is ineligible to 
                participate in the Small Business Innovation Research 
                Program; or
                    (B) a venture capital operating company or an 
                employee benefit or pension plan that is the alter ego, 
                instrumentality, or identity of another business 
                concern that is ineligible to participate in the Small 
                Business Innovation Research Program.
                                 <all>
```