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

<ARTICLE>   5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                                     22
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           42
<PP&E>                                                  8,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                          6,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          2,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  12,626
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                2,231
<OTHER-SE>                                            (12,050)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            2,807
<SALES>                                                    73
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           73
<CGS>                                                     808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           1,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         (329)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (1,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (1,599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (1,599)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                     107,974,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,664,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                   670,809
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           118,544,871
<PP&E>                                       3,484,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                 382,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             123,133,422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,489,120
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       196,282
<OTHER-SE>                                 110,448,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               123,133,422
<SALES>                                     17,241,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,241,733
<CGS>                                        4,139,328
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,139,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,675,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,532,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,040,697)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,040,697)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,040,697)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
Exhibit  31.1
CERTIFICATIONS

I,  Geoffrey  Eiten,  certify  that:

1.     I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form 10-QSB of Mason Hill
Holdings,  Inc.

2.     Based  on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report.

3.     Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial statements, and other financial
information  included  in  this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 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  quarterly  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
quarterly  report  (the  "evaluation  date");  and

     C)     presented  in  this  quarterly  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
functions):

     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.

6.     The  registrant's  other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly  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:     February  24,  2004

     /s/  Geoffrey  Eiten
     Geoffrey  Eiten
     President
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1489 

To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act of 1996 to repeal the drug felon ban for participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food and Nutrition Act 

of 2008. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2023 

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

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 to repeal the drug felon ban 

for participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance 

program under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. 

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 ‘‘SNAP Back Act of 

5 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1489 IH

1 SEC. 1. REPEAL OF DENIAL OF SNAP BENEFITS FOR CER2 TAIN DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS. 

3 (a) REPEALERS.—Section 115 of the Personal Re4 sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 

5 1996 (21 U.S.C. 862a) is amended— 

6 (1) in the heading by striking ‘‘AND BENE7 FITS’’, 

8 (2) in subsection (a)— 

9 (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘, or’’ at 

10 the end and inserting a period, 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘for—’’ and all that fol12 lows through ‘‘(1)’’, and inserting ‘‘for’’, and 

13 (C) by striking paragraph (2), 

14 (3) in subsection (b)— 

15 (A) in the heading by striking ‘‘AND BEN16 EFITS FOR OTHERS’’ and all that follows 

17 through ‘‘FAMILIES’’, and 

18 (B) by striking paragraph (2), 

19 (4) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘or benefits’’, 

20 and 

21 (5) in subsection (e)— 

22 (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘, and’’ 

23 at the end and inserting a period, 

24 (B) by striking ‘‘it—’’ and all that follows 

25 through ‘‘(1)’’, and inserting ‘‘it’’, and 

26 (C) by striking paragraph (2). 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 1489 IH

1 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The Personal Re2 sponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 

3 1996 is amended in the table of contents by striking the 

4 item relating to section 115 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Sec. 115. Denial of assistance for certain drug-related convictions.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Bartley Campbell v. Frank K. Wallace.

*Justices’ cow'ts*— OeHified *tianscript*— Identity *of defendant.*

A properly certified transcript of a justice’s judgment rendered in another State on personal service and appearance, is sufficient evidence of the justice’s jurisdiction. Oomp. Laws § 5988.

The identity of a person sued on a transcript of a foreign judgment may he presumed if his full name is identical with that of the party against whom it was recovered.

Error to Wayne.

Submitted June 16.

Decided June 22.

Certiorari to a justice to bring up proceedings in a suit upon a transcript of judgment. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Charles E. Miller*for plaintiff in error.

Where former conviction is to be proved the identity of the convict must be shown: *McCarthy's Case*42 Mich. 71; the courts of Michigan have no judicial knowledge *of*the statute law of Illinois: *Thomas v. Robinson*3 Wend. 267; a judgment of another court cannot be treated as valid unless it appears that the court had jurisdiction: *McEwam v. Zimmer*38 Mich. 765; delegated powers cannot be made a basis for a judgment until it appears that they were delegated actually: *Hebert v. Bulte*42 Mich. 491; *Goodrich v. Burdick*26 Mich. 39.

*Douglass & Bowen*for defendant in error.

Cooley, J.

The assignments of error in this case are frivolous. The suit was brought upon a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in the State of Illinois, and the transcript showed personal service and a personal appearance. The objections to a recovery upon the judgment there rendered *are*— Ewst, that no proof is given of the identity of the party now sued with the party sued in Illinois; and second, that the laws of Illinois are not put in *321evidence to show that the justice in that State had jurisdiction of the case. The first finds no support in *Bennett v. Libhart*27 Mich. 489, to which our attention was called, for the name of the party sued here was identical with that of the party against whom the judgment was recovered,, which was not the case there. The second is answered by the statute, Comp. L. § 5933, which makes the transcript: properly certified sufficient evidence. No defect was pointed* out in the certificates here.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
**Exhibit 21.01**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF KANA SOFTWARE, INC.**

BROADBASE SOFTWARE, INC. (UNITED STATES) 

FOUNDATION CV (NETHERLANDS, RESIDENT IN BARBADOS) 

KANA COMMUNICATIONS EUROPELTD (UNITED KINGDOM) 

KANA COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD. (AUSTRALIA) 

KANA SOFTWARE AUSTRIA GmbH (AUSTRIA) 

KANA SOFTWARE B.V. (NETHERLANDS) 

KANA SOFTWARE HONG KONG LIMITED (HONG KONG) 

KANA SOFTWARE BVBA (BELGIUM) 

KANA SOFTWARE CANADA LTD. (CANADA) 

KANA SOFTWARE GmbH (GERMANY) 

KANA SOFTWARE INDIA (INDIA) 

KANA SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL LTD. (CAYMANISLANDS) 

KANA SOFTWARE KK (JAPAN) 

KANA SOFTWARE LTD. (UNITEDKINGDOM) 

KANA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (UNITED STATES)
#### Richard Realy *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law: — Evidence—Larceny.

Where in an indictment a defendant is charged with stealing' a horse in 1874 from a certain named person, it was competent for the commonwealth to prove that the theft took place in 1872.

*760APPEAL, FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

October 6, 1876.

*C. S. Hill, J. W. Jones, for appellant. Moss, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Coper:

We do not perceive in this case any substantial error to the prejudice of the appellant. Pie had no right to complain of the introduction of evidence tending to prove him guilty of stealing Simpson’s horse in 1872; for although it was alleged in the indictment in this case that the horse stealing therein charged was committed in 1874, it was competent to prove the stealing of a horse from Simpson at any time prior to the finding of the indictment.

There was no error in refusing to allow the appellant to prove the conversation had with Preitt, or that with the two men who1 are said to have brought the horse to his house. Neither of these conversations occurred at the time the horse is said to have been delivered to the appellant. One was more than a half hour afterwards, and the other after the horse had been delivered and the parties went into the house. Neither conversation related to or explained an act being done at the time the conversation was had, and therefore neither was admissible as a part of the res gestae.

We perceive no1 objection to the instructions given. The words, “feloniously stole, took, and carried away,” were sufficiently specific, and must have been understood by the jury, and are not obnoxious to the objection that a question of law was submitted to the jury. Instructions 7 and 8 were properly refused. No. 7 was wrong because by it the court was asked to say that a conviction could not be had for the stealing of the horse mentioned in the indictment unless such stealing was on or about the date mentioned in the indictment. No. 8 was substantially given in the other instructions, especially in No. 4.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### McKay, et al., *v.*J. W. Sutherland.

Sale of Real Estate by Parol — Possession—Lien for Purchase Money.

A purchaser of real estate by parol who has been put into possession thereunder has a lien for the purchase price on the premises, on a rescission" of his contract not only as against his vendor but against the claim of a subsequent purchaser with notice of his prior purchase.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

October 18, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Elliott:

The appellee, Sutherland, charges in his petition in this action that he bought a half-acre lot of land of appellant and paid him for it; that the contract was verbal; that appellant put him in possession of the lot, but afterwards refused to convey it to him, and sold the lot to appellant, Givens; that the lot was worth $125, and that appellee had given said sum for it.

The appellants failed to answer, and judgment was rendered *772against appellant, U. McKay, by which said contract was declared not to be enforcible, and a judgment rendered for plaintiff for $125 and costs; and it was further adjudged that as the adjudged sum was the purchase price of a lot of land, and as appellant could not enforce his contract for a conveyance he had an enforcible hen upon said land for the purchase price thereof, which lien was enforced and the land ordered to be sold by the judgment.

*W. N. Sweeney, for appellants. Owen & Ellis, for appellee.*

After judgment was rendered, the appellant, McKay, offered to file an answer; but as he failed to show why he did not answer before judgment, we think the court did not abuse a sound discretion in overruling his motion. The petition states that appellant, Givens, had notice before his purchase of the lot, that appellee had bought by parol contract and paid for it, and that he had been put in possession.

A purchasef by parol, who has paid the purchase money and been put in possession of the purchased premises, has a hen for the purchase price on the premises on a rescission of his contract, not only as against his vendor, but against the claim of any subsequent purchaser, with notice of his prior purchase, and as this was all that was done in this case, said judgment must be *affirmed.*
#### A. Harpending *v.*Commonwealth.

Taxation — Deduction of Indebtedness.

A person assessed for taxation on money is entitled to have deducted therefrom the amount of his indebtedness.

APPEAL, PROM CALDWELL, CIRCUIT COURT.

December 10, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

In 1873 appellant, under the equalization law, listed with the assessor for Caldwell county, $1,200 for taxation. The supervisors for said county raised the amount to $20,000. He then applied to the court of said county to have the amount reduced to $5,000, which the court refused to do, and he has appealed to this court.

On the trial appellant was examined as a witness in his own behalf, and proved that at the commencement of the war he purchased seven United States bonds of the denomination of $1,000 each, and had $4,000 in United States currency; that having concluded to organize a national bank in Princeton, Ky., he went to New York, and friends there agreed to furnish him what money he might want for that purpose; that with the money he had and what he borrowed int New York, he was enabled to purchase $27,000 of United States; bonds; that he went to Washington City to deposit the bonds and: to get the national currency, but on his arrival there he found the expenses to be incurred were too -great, and he abandoned the purpose of organizing a bank, sold six of his United States bonds, and retained the 21 which he then had; that his friends in New York subsequently furnished him with money, which, with the proceeds of the six bonds he had sold, made about the sum of $20,000, all of which is loaned out, and secured by mortgages on real estate in Caldwell county, Kentucky, and of said sum $15,000 are borrowed, and for which he was indebted.

By an act of the legislature approved January 9, 1852, it is made the duty of the assessors of this commonwealth, after having taken *246the list of all property required to be specifically listed, to require each person on oafh to fix the amount he or she is worth from all other sources, on the day to which said list relates, after talcing out his or her indebtedness from said amount, etc.

*James R. Hezvlett, for appellant.*

*John Rodman, for appellee.*

2 Rev. Stat. 253. This indebtedness of appellant, from his statement under oath, appears to be just and owing for a valuable consideration, and such as he had a right to have taken from the fund loaned out, and that he should be required to pay tax on the residue thereof, being $5,000.

Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*and the cause is remanded for a judgment to be rendered in conformity to this opinion.
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Great Lakes Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Rogers, Chief Financial Officer, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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)

21:    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.

November 8, 2006

| |                                                      | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Michael J. Rogers                                | 
| | Michael J. Rogers                                    | 
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 
| | Principal Financial Officer                          |
Order entered October 13, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01146-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-03051

ORDER

This accelerated appeal involves the termination of appellant’s parental rights. Appellant 

is indigent and allowed to proceed without advance payment of costs. The clerk’s record is

overdue. By postcard notice dated October 2, 2017, the Court informed Felicia Pitre, Dallas 

County District Clerk, that the record was overdue and instructed her to file the clerk’s record

within ten days. As of today’s date, the record has not been filed. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Pitre to file the clerk’s record by OCTOBER 23, 2017. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all 

parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 12


                         BAY VIEW CAPITAL CORPORATION
           COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS (LOSS) TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Nine Months Ended
                                                                    9/30/00       9/30/99
                                                                    -------       -------
<S>                                                                 <C>              <C>
Earnings (Loss):

        Earnings (loss) before income tax expense                   (249,368)        44,181
        Add:
        Interest on advances and other borrowings                     97,336         85,457
        Interest component of rental expense                           1,943          1,418
                                                                 ---------------------------
        Earnings loss before fixed charges excluding
         interest on customer deposits                              (150,089)       131,056
        Interest on customer deposits                                128,868        103,061
                                                                 ---------------------------
        Earnings loss before fixed charges                           (21,221)       234,117
                                                                 ===========================

Fixed Charges:
        Interest on advances and other borrowings                     97,336         85,457
        Interest component of rental expense                           1,943          1,418
                                                                 ---------------------------
        Fixed charges excluding interest on
         customer deposits                                            99,279         86,875
        Interest on customer deposits                                128,868        103,061
                                                                 ---------------------------
        Total fixed charges                                          228,147        189,936
                                                                 ===========================
Ratio of earnings (loss) to fixed charges including interest
 on customer deposits                                                  (0.09)          1.23

Ratio of earnings (loss) to fixed charges excluding interest
 on customer deposits                                                  (1.51)          1.51
</TABLE>