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

<ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND>                    THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                            EXTRACTED FROM ANR PIPELINE COMPANY FORM 10-K
                            ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
                            AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
                            SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                1,000,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              5
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     317
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                        28
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  425
<PP&E>                                          3,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,126
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             349
<BONDS>                                           504
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,814
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  730
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   267
<INCOME-TAX>                                       98
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               169
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
<R>





EXHIBIT 10.2







AMENDMENT NO. 1

to the

SPONSORED PROJECT AGREEMENT

between

MicroChannel Technologies Corporation (Sponsor)

and the

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ISU)




WHEREAS the Sponsor and ISU mutually agree to amend the research program under the Sponsored Project Agreement with an effective date of May 1, 2005;




NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following changes:




Section 1.0  Project Period




Section 1.0 Shall be modified as underlined:




Project Period. The (“Project Period”) of this Agreement is September 1, 2005 through February 28, 2007.




Section 3.0 – Compensation




Section 3.1 shall be modified as underlined:




As consideration for ISU’s performance of the Project, Sponsor agrees to pay ISU the total sum of one hundred fifty-five thousand eight hundred thirty-nine U.S. dollars ($155,839) as detailed in the approved budget in the attached Appendix B incorporated into this Agreement by reference. The payment terms shall be as follows: fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) due within 90 days of execution of the Agreement, and four (4) equal payments of twenty-six thousand four hundred fifty-nine dollars and seventy-five cents ($26,459.75) due each by January 31, 2006, April 30, 2006, July 31, 2006 and October 31, 2006.







ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree to execute this Amendment based upon their written approval.




IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY OF

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY




By: /s/ Gary Gillet

By: /s/ Terri DuMoulin

Gary Gillet

Terri DuMoulin

Title:  Associate Director

Title:  President




Date: October 13, 2005

Date: October 11, 2005







   IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION







By: /s/ Kenneth Kirkland

Date: October 13, 2005

Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D.

Executive Director
– be it ‘dedicated’, ‘isolated’, ‘separated’, ‘delayed’, or otherwise – can dispose of unwanted electrons. Sending them 

down the drain of a grounding conductor only makes them reappear within a microsecond about 200 meters away on 

some other conductor. 

This paper presents a brief review of some of the fallacies, with illustrative measurement results, and proposes two 

approaches for remedy, rather than counterproductive grounding practices based on misconceptions. 

Filename: Divert surges 
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-16-2005 

# P opky v . U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-2798

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" P op k y v . U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 601. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/601UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS F OR THE T HIR

D C IR CU IT May 31, 2005 No. 04-2798 HO WARD D. POP KY , e t a l., Ap pe lla nts v. UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA (E.D. of P.A. Civi l No. 03-cv- 01487) P rese nt: SL OV I TE R, F I SHE R, a nd ALDI SERT, CIRCU I T JUD GE S. 1. Motion by

Appelleeto Publi sh Opinion

/ s / Ch a n e l R. Gr a h a m O pi ni on & Judgm ent ent ere d 5/ 17/ 05 C hanel R . G r aham 267- 299- 4955 C as e M anage r O R D E R T he for egoi ng m ot i on i s gr ant ed. B y theCourt , /s/ D. Mi c ha e l F

ish e r C i rc u i tJu d ge Dated: August 16, 2005 CRG/cc: J ohn R. Cray

ton, Esq. J onathan S. Cohen, Esq. J oan I .Oppenhe imer, Esq.
#### Sarah Canfield *v.*Wm. W. Labor, and Others.

Husband and Wife — Action by Wife.

A wife cannot sue to enforce ,a contract made by her with the defendants, without joining the husband as plaintiff or making him a party defendant.

Husband and Wife — Deed by Wife.

A purchaser of land under contract with a married woman is not bound to accept a deed executed solely by her.

Husband and Wife — Suit by Wife — Husband Necessary Party.

A proceeding in equity by a married woman to authorize her to act as a feme sole is void, where 'the husband was not .a party to the suit.

APPEAL PROM HANCOCK CIRCUIT COURT.

October 11, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This is rather a small proceeding. This is a penal proceeding to enforce the performance of a contract made with the - ap-*185pellees without joining the husband as plaintiff, or making him a defendant, and what is equally as singular a deed is tendered by the married woman made as if she was a feme sole and not in conjunction with her husband, in order to show a compliance with the terms of the contract on her part. If she was a feme sole she might bring such an action and tender such a deed, but we know of no law authorizing a feme covert to make such a contract and certainly have been unable to find any recognizing her right to sue as feme sole and make, deeds in her own name disregarding altogether the mutual rights of the husband. There are instances when a married woman may make conveyances by virtue of some power conferred by will or deed made by another, or where she is. empowered to- act as a feme sole under the provisions of our statute, but in a case like this, the contract if it can be enforced at all must be in the name of the husband or the husband and wife jointly and the deed executed by both in order to make the title perfect. A contract, however, made by a married woman is entirely void. If as in this case the vendees of the feme covert take possession of the property she undertakes to convey, the chancellor would not permit them to hold on to it, without complying with its terms, and would either annul the contract or enforce it. The appellant (the feme covert) has failed to make any conveyance of the property and is in no condition to pass title. The proceeding in equity to. authorize her to act as a feme sole was null and void as the husband was no. party to it, his name being used without right, and the proceeding by an amendment to this action on the part of the wife against the husband' for a divorce should have been stricken from the files.

*R. Y. Bush, Kincheloe, Sweeney, for appellant.*

*Williami, Brown, for appellee.*

There is no reason for disturbing the judgment of the court below. If the husband and wife have any claim against the appellees for rent this action is no bar to its recovery, as the whole proceeding on the part of the wife from its inception is a nullityv Judgment is. affirmed.
#### Second National Bank of Louisville *v.*National State Bank of New Jersey.

Appeal — Transcript of Record.

Before the Court of Appeals can. revise the -judgment of a trial court, one of the parties must, within the prescribed time, file in the cleric’s office an authenticated copy of the record.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 12, 1874.

*731-, *for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Our power to revise the judgmeiits of inferior tribunals in cases in which appeals lie to this court, arises, when, within the prescribed time, one or the other of the parties to the judgment shall file in the clerk’s office “an authenticated copy of the record.” Secs. 879, 880, Civil Code of Practice. The Code makes no provisions for the prosecution of appeals upon agreed records.

In cases in which the copy of the record has been made out and authenticated, as provided by law, this court has in some instances allowed omitted portions to be supplied, and mistakes to be corrected by the agreement of parties; but we are aware of no case in which the judgment of an inferior court has been reviewed upon a record wholly unauthenticated. We can not consent tO' carry a practice, of doubtful propriety at best, to such a length. In this case, we have no official information that any such action, as that mentioned in the printed transcript, has ever been instituted in the Louisville Chancery Court; and there is no legal evidence before us showing that any such judgment as that which we are asked to review, has been rendered by said court.

The order of submission is set aside, and appellant is required to file and authenticate a copy of the record within sixty days, upon pain of having his appeal dismissed.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4620

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To confirm the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture 

to collect approved State commodity assessments on behalf of the State from the proceeds of marketing assistance loans.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4620 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. CONFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY 

2 OF AGRICULTURE TO COLLECT STATE COM3 MODITY ASSESSMENTS. 

4 (a) COLLECTION FROM MARKETING ASSISTANCE

5 LOANS.—The Secretary of Agriculture may collect com6 modity assessments from the proceeds of a marketing as7 sistance loan for a producer if the assessment is required 

8 to be paid by the producer or the first purchaser of a com9 modity pursuant to a State law or pursuant to an author10 ity administered by the Secretary. This collection author11 ity does not extend to a State tax or other revenue collec12 tion activity by a State. 

13 (b) COLLECTION PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT.—The 

14 collection of an assessment under subsection (a) shall be 

15 made as specified in an agreement between the Secretary 

16 of Agriculture and the State requesting the collection.

Passed the House of Representatives October 5, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 31.1

EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(A) CERTIFICATIONS

I, William W.R. Elder, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Genus, Inc.;

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 valuation 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,


                                       47
<PAGE>
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: August 6th, 2004


                         /s/  William W. R. Elder
                         ------------------------
                         William W.R. Elder
                         Chief Executive Officer


                                       48
<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4745 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4745

   To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown GN Liquid Crude.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2004

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown GN Liquid Crude.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON DIRESUL BROWN GN LIQUID CRUDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.35.04      Diresul Brown GN    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Liquid Crude                                                       31/2008
                         (leuco sulfur
                         dye) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3204.19.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
****EXHIBIT 32(b)****

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Venerando J. Indelicato, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley        Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (1) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

September 25, 2009

 

|   | /s/ Venerando J. Indelicato |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   | Venerando J. Indelicato          |
|   | Principal Financial Officer      |
|   |                             |
#### Harry Campbell *v. A.*Ackerland & Co.

Judgment — Process.

Where defendant was not served with process, and did not enter his appearance or respond to the petition, he is not subject to a judgment in personam, and such a judgment cannot be the foundation of an action against him.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

September 30, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

. There was no evidence conducing to show that the appellees were actuated by malice, and that they sued out the attachment without probable cause. Appellant was indebted to them at the time they sued it out, and was a non-resident of the state of Ohio which, by the law of that state, as the proof shows, constituted a *130ground for an attachment; consequently Instruction No. 2 asked for by appellant was properly overruled.

*Haselrigg, for appellant*

*Holt, for appellees.*

The judgment rendered in favor of appellees against appellant in the Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County, Ohio, appears to have been in the nature of a judgment *in rem*and not a personal judgment. And for that reason, if for no other, Instruction No. 3 could not have been given.

It is conclusively shown that the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, had no jurisdiction as to the person of appellant, no process was actually served on him, nor did he enter his appearance and respond to the petition; he was not, therefore, subject to a judgment of the court in personam. And, although a personal judgment may have been sought in the petition, and one in form rendered by the court, still such judgment, where the record shows that there was no actuál service of process, nor personal appearance cannot be the foundation of an action in this state.

As no errors are perceived in giving or in overruling instructions, and the verdict is sustained by the weight of evidence, the judgment must be *affirmed.*
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40301 Summary Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANYELL DEONCORE WATERS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CR-48-2

- - - - - - - - - - November 6, 1995 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Danyell Deoncore Waters appeals from the district court's judgment of conviction, after entry of a conditional guilty plea, for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that the district court erred by denying his to suppress, by increasing his base offense level pursuant toU.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm during a drugtrafficking offense, by failing to reduce his base offense levelNo. 95-40301 -2- under § 3B1.2 for minor/minimal participant status, and that § 2D1.1 is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment as racially discriminatory. Finding that the district court committed no error and that Waters' contentions are unavailing, we AFFIRM.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements and
   of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)   the information contained in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/JEFF T. WILSON
    Jeff T. Wilson.
    Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 5, 2009

---