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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 FOR USA INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                                  
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998                     
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         764
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               764
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                     13
<COMMON>                                       751
<OTHER-SE>                                     764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                        4,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (4,871)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0     
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,871)                        
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0 
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,871)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        


</TABLE>
10883.

#### Truitt *v.*Rust & Shelburne Sales Co.

Decided March 11, 1920.

' Attachment; from city court of LaGrange — Judge Moon. March 11, 1920.

*M. U. Mooly,*for plaintilf.

*Hatton Lovejoy, Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein,*for defendant.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. In a purchaser’s suit for damages because of the failure of the seller to deliver the goods in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale, generally the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time and place of delivery. *Sizer*v. *Melton,*129 *Ga.*143 (7) (58 S. E. 1055); *Harwood Lumber Co.*v. *Adam,*134 *Ga.*821 (1) (68 S. E. 725) ; Civil Code (1910), § 4131. “The purchaser of goods cannot recover of the seller damages for non-delivery measured by Ms profits on a particular contract of resale and by his losses on account of inability to perform that contract, unless the seller at the time of making the contract of sale had notice of such contract of resale.” *Wappoo Mills*v. *Guano Co.,*91 *Ga.*396 (18 S. E. 108; *Hardwood Lumber Co.*v. *Adam,*134 *Ga.*821, 825 (68 S. E. 725, 32 L. R. A. *(N. S.)*192).

2. Where the petition cannot be construed as asking for general or nominal damages, but is expressly limited to a prayer for special damages only, and these are not recoverable, the suit is not maintainable, and is subject to be dismissed on demurrer. *Sparks Milling Co.*v. *Western Union Tel. Co.,*9 *Ga. App.*728 (72 S. E. 179) ; *Hadden*v. *Southern Messenger Service,*135 *Ga.*372 (69 S. E. 480).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
TRUSTWORTHY AI CONFERENCE AGENDA

Location: Bluejeans and virtually 

Date: October 4th – October 6th 2022

Time: 9:00am – 5:00pm ET

 

 

Tuesday 4th October 2022 

– Employment Task 

• 9:00am- 12:00pm ET- Employment 

Task Round Table Discussion. 

• 12:00pm- 1:45pm ET- Lunch Break

• 1:45pm- 5:00pmET- Employment Task 

Round Table Discussion. 

Wednesday 5th October 

2022- Translation Task 

• 9:00am- 12:00pm ET- Translation 

Task. 

• 12:00pm- 1:45pm ET- Lunch Break.

• 1:45pm- 5:00pm ET- Translation Task

Thursday 6th October 

2022- Misinformation 

Task 

• 9:00am-12:00pm ET- Misinformation 

Task. 

• 12:00pm- 1:45pm ET- Lunch Break.

• 1:45pm- 5:00pm ET- Misinformation 

Task.
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 on Form 10-QSB of Mason Hill Holdings,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for  the  quarter  ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned  Geoffrey Eiten, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of  Mason  Hill  Holdings, Inc., 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
Company.

Dated:  April  7,  2004

                                      /s/Geoffrey  Eiten
     Chief  Executive  Officer

                                      Geoffrey  Eiten
                                      Chief  Financial  Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

v. ) Criminal No. 08-000327-CG 

 ) 

A. SAMUEL KELLEY, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for new trial and judgment of 

acquittal (Doc. 661) and the government’s response (Doc. 677, 698). The court has carefully 

considered the grounds raised in the motion, and has concluded that the verdicts are supported by 

the weight of the evidence, and that the defendant received a fair trial and did not suffer any 

actual compelling prejudice. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cr-00327-CG-B Document 758 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-131729 on Form S-8of our reports dated February 28, 2007 relating to the financial statements andfinancial statement schedules of Huntsman Corporation (which report expressesan unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to: i) thepresentation of the consolidated financial statements of Huntsman Corporationas if Huntsman Holdings LLC and Huntsman Corporation were combined for allperiods presented, ii) the adoption of FASB Interpretation Nos. 46R and 47during 2005 and FASB Statement No. 158 during 2006, and iii) the company’schanged in measurement date for its pension and other postretirement benefitplans during 2005), and management’s report on the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse on theeffectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reportingbecause of a material weakness), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Huntsman Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006.
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|

 

Houston, Texas

February 28, 2007

----
---

EXHIBIT 12





BAY VIEW CAPITAL CORPORATION


COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES





Year Ended9/30/01

9/30/00Earnings:Earnings (loss) before income tax expense

(163,801
)

(249,368
)Add:Interest on advances and other borrowings

46,681


97,336Interest component of rental expense

1,626


1,943Earnings before fixed charges excluding interest on customer
deposits

(115,494
)

(150,089
)Interest on customer deposits

114,065


128,868Earnings before fixed charges

(1,429
)

(21,221
)Fixed Charges:Interest on advances and other borrowings

46,681


97,336Interest component of rental expense

1,626


1,943Fixed charges excluding interest on customer deposits

48,307


99,279Interest on customer deposits

114,065


128,868Total fixed charges

162,372


228,147Ratio of earnings to fixed charges including interest on customer deposits

(0.01
)

(0.09
)Ratio of earnings to fixed charges excluding interest on customer deposits

(2.39
)

(1.51
)
EXHIBIT 32.1

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         With reference to the quarterly Report of Redwood Empire Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Patrick W. Kilkenny, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United
States Code that, to my knowledge,

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                           /s/ Patrick W. Kilkenny
                                           -----------------------
                                           Patrick W. Kilkenny
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                           Date:  May 7, 2004
**Exhibit 15.2**

November 5, 2009 

Beckman Coulter, Inc. 

4300 N. Harbor Boulevard 

Fullerton, CA 92834-3100

Re: Registration Statement Nos. 333-155275, 333-145422, 333-100904, 333-156005, 333-24851, 333-37429, 33-31573, 33-41519, 33-51506,33-66990, 33-66988, 333-69291, 333-59099, 333-69249, 333-69251, 333-72896 and 333-72892 

With respect to the subject registration statements,we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated November 5, 2009, related to our review of interim financial information. 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report preparedor certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Irvine, California
Denied; and Opinion Filed June 3, 2015 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00634
- CV IN RE MARTINIANO FLO RES , Relator Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219
- 80171
- 06 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial

cou rt to rule on his September 2011 and May 2014 motions for post

- conviction forensic DNA testing and for appointment of counsel in connection with his motion for forensic DNA testing. The mandamus record reveals that the trial court signed an orde r dated November 22, 2011 in which it concluded “no biological evidence secured in relation to the offense currently exists.” The trial court further concluded, “[b]ecause no biological evidence secured in relation to the offense currently exists, there a re not reasonable grounds for the filing of a post

- conviction DNA motion.” For those reasons, the trial court denied the motion for post

- conviction DNA testing and the motion for appointment of counsel. Relator did not appeal this order. The mandamus rec ord does not include an order with regard to relator’s May 9, 2014 motions. The trial court was not required, however, to rule on this second motion when it had previously concluded that no biological material exists to be tested. A bsent exceptional– 2

–

circ umstances, which the mandamus record does not reflect are present in this case, a trial court has no ministerial duty to rule repeatedly on substantively identical motion s seeking the same relief. See In re Birdwell , 393 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. App.

— Waco 20 12, n o pet.) (denying mandamus compelling ruling on tenth motion for forensic DNA testing) ; see also In re Cloud , No. 05

- 15

- 00223

- CV, 2015 WL 1021127, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Mar. 6, 2015, orig. proceeding) (trial court no longer required to consider succe ssive motions for forensic D NA testing after Court three times affirmed trial court’s denial of m otions for forensic DNA testing); In re Sims , No. 05

- 13

- 00049

- CV, 2013 WL 1273912, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Mar. 15, 2013, orig. proceeding) (“Relator is not en titled to a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to repeatedly rule on the same motion.”); In re Durden , No. 14

- 12

- 00143

- CR, 2012 WL 590815, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 23, 2012, orig. proceeding) (“[N]o ruling is required in response to a subsequent filing of a motion for DNA testing if there has already been a full adjudication in connection with a prior motion for DNA testing, absent exceptional circumstances.”). To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relato r must show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not satisfied these requirements. We deny the peti tion.

150634F.P05 /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60107 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERALD EDWARD DAVIS, also known as Gerald E. Davis, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:98-CR-90-ALL-LS

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gerald Edward Davis appeals his conviction and sentence following a jury trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Davis argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal asserting that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. See United States v.
Jones , 133 F.3d 358, 362 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 523 U.S. 1144 (1998)(this court reviews de novo the denial of a motion forNo. 99-60107 -2- judgment of acquittal). Specifically, Davis challenges the conclusion that he possessed the firearms. An undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, testified that he purchased several firearms from Davis, while Davis was working at his wife’s pawn shop. Despite Davis’ testimony to the contrary, the agent’s testimony supported the conclusion that Davis possessed the firearms. See United
States v. Guerrero , 169 F.3d 933, 939 (5th Cir. 1999)(holding that this court must accept the credibility choices that support the jury’s verdict and will not re-weigh the evidence). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the Annual Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jay A. Jones, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.02, 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 Registrant.



|                     |  |  |  |                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Dated: June 15, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ JAY A. JONES                            
|                     |  |  |  | Jay A. Jones Interim Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered February 12, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01276
- CV
STEVEN WELLS , Appellant
V. GLEN DALE MOTOR CO. AND TOMSIC MOTOR CO. , Appellee s On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12
- 03265 

### O RDER Both the clerk’s and reporter’s records in this case are overdue. By postcard dated November 1, 2013, we notified the court reporter that the reporter’s record was overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within thirty days. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. Also by postcard dated November 1, 2013, we notified the district clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue. We directed the district clerk to file the clerk’s rec ord within thirty days. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, either the clerk’s record or written verification that appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record. We notifiy appellant that if we receiveverification he is not indigent and has not paid for the record, we will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b).
We OR DER Vielica Dobbins, official court reporter for the 134th Judicial District Court, to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either: (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verifica tion that appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record. We notifiy appellant that if we receive verification he is not indigent and has not paid for the record, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. Se e T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c)

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic tranmission, to the following persons:
Gary Fitzsimmons Dallas County District Clerk Vielica Dobbins Official Court Reporter, 134th Judicial District Court

/s/ CAR OLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
[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 Annual Report  of  Nortia  Capital
Partners,  Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB  for  the  period
ending  April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and  Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William  Bosso,
Chief  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 Exchange Act of 1934;
and
     (2)  The  information contained in the Report fairly
presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 8, 2004

                        /s/ William Bosso
                        --------------------------------------
                        William Bosso, Chief Executive Officer
                        Nortia Capital Partners, Inc.
#### J. B. Martin *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Indictment.

It is not sufficient in an indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses, to aver that the representations made were false, but it must be alleged in addition that the defendant knew them to be false.

APPEAL PROM ADAIR CIRCUIT COURT.

March 25, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer;

It is not sufficient in an indictment for obtaining money or prop*401erty by false pretenses, to allege that the representations made were false, but it should be alleged in addition that the defendant knew them to be false. Nor can the necessity for such allegations be dispensed with by the averments that the representations were unlawfully and feloniously made. These allegations serve no other purpose except to show the intent with which the representations were made.

*Winfrey & Stewart, for appellant.*

*John Rodman, for appellee.*

Nor is the general allegation that the representations were false, sufficient. The representations made should be stated in the indictment, and it should then be charged that they were false, and were known by the defendant to be false. That the representations are false did not necessarily make the defendant liable to a prosecution for a public offense.

It is charged that the defendant represented that he had caught two of the robbers of the Columbia Deposit Bank, and had them in jail in another state, and required one hundred dollars to bring them to Adair county, which said statements were false. This may be true, and it may also be true that the defendant had arrested and committed to jail in another state two persons whom he supposed to be two of those engaged in robbing the bank; hence .the necessity to allege that he knew the representations he made were untrue.

An indictment is never sufficient which does not exclude every rational hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. The motion of the appellant to arrest the judgment should have prevailed, because the indictment did not state facts constituting a public offense.

Judgment *reversed*and cause remanded for further proceedings.