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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       8,298,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,197,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    445,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,537,217
<PP&E>                                     123,198,919
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,756,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             129,460,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,363,391
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,060
<COMMON>                                       151,997
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,178,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               129,460,405
<SALES>                                      8,340,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,340,982
<CGS>                                        5,857,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,857,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,077,030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                406,105
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            406,105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   406,105
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



 CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
                             (FURNISHED, NOT FILED)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William L. Jenkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.



/s/ William L. Jenkins
----------------------




William L. Jenkins
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         763,957
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 836,384
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            260,633
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,125
<OTHER-SE>                                     574,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 836,384
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                14,996
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,996
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,996
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                564,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (549,249)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (549,249)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (549,249)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.88)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
• Lack of specialized personnel 

such as IT staff; one person 

often fills several roles 

• Declining volunteerism

Personnel

Rural areas have difficulty

recruiting, hiring & keeping staff

Resources

• Often missing basic gear and 

technology; responders buy 

own tools or used equipment 

• Reliance on fundraisers & 

community support

Financial

Rural areas often suffer 

from limited budgets

• Problems with radios, 

cellphones, and GPS 

• Lack of department and 

community resources and 

facilities

Infrastructure

Rural areas have problems with 

communication & coverage

Based on nationwide (US) interviews with first responders, NIST analyzed data identifying the 

contexts and challenges specifically faced by rural first responders. While there are many 

similarities between rural first responders and their urban and suburban counterparts, this report 

(https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8277) focuses on the unique nature of rural emergency response 

and its implications for technology needs and development. While some places are wealthier than 

others, the characteristics and challenges shown are often experienced in rural areas. This work is 

part of a larger dataset of approximately 200 first responder interviews 

(https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216, http://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8245) 

Public Safety Communications Research 

Examining the 

Rural Perspective

NIST PSCR Usability Team

Geography & 

Topography

• Response time & coverage affected by: 

• Distance 

• Size 

• Isolation 

• Type of terrain 

• Remote / wilderness areas 

• Lack of addresses

Incident Types

• Seasonal nature of climate 

• Brush fires, avalanches, flooding, etc. 

• Incidents like skiing, hiking, rafting, etc. 

• Tourism and special events 

• Increase in population and call volume 

• Tourists unable to give location info 

• Tourism affects staffing needs

63 

Rural 

Interviews 

Nationwide
#### Etter et al. *v.*Armstrong et al.

APPEAL from the Morgan Common Pleas.

*G. M. Overstreet, A. B. Hunter, W. R. Harrison,*and *W. S. Shirley,*for appellants.

*C. F. McNutt, S. Claypool, G. W. Grubbs,*and *F. P. A. Phelps,*for appellees.

Pettit, J.

The appellants have not complied with rule 19 of this court, 32 Ind., in making marginal notes on the transcript. It is of great if not absolute necessity that this rule should be complied with, to assist the judges and facilitate business in this court, which is overwhelmed with cases and labor.

The submission is set aside, at the costs of the appellants.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NetZero, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30,
2001 of our reports dated August 14, 2001 included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of United Online, Inc. (Registration No. 333-63704)
dated August 24, 2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of the Company. We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-89705, 333-93599, 333-42084, 333-54210, 333-55704 and
333-61534) of the Company of our reports dated August 14, 2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of the Company, which is
incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Century
City, California
September 25, 2001

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Scott N. Greenberg, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annualreport on Form10-K/A of GP Strategies Corporation;
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 30, 2013



|/s/ Scott N. Greenberg  | 
|----------------------- | 
|Scott N. Greenberg      | 
|Chief Executive Officer |
1

The Court notes that Rodriguez-Hernandez’s counsel declined to confirm that he had

been authorized to accept service on behalf of his client. (Doc. 14 at 6, ¶ 12).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0398-WS-M

 )

$66,000.00, MORE OR LESS, etc., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s “Request to Clerk for Entry of Default

Against Potential Claimant Rodriguez-Hernandez” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

55(a). (Doc. 18). The plaintiff notes the Court’s ruling that the plaintiff has satisfied the

constitutional demands of due process in its unsuccessful efforts to provide RodriguezHernandez actual notice, including its provision of actual notice to Rodriguez-Hernandez’s

attorney. (Doc. 15). Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(6)(a)(i)(A), however, allows a potential

claimant 30 days from “the date of service of the Government’s complaint” in which to file a

verified statement of interest, and the plaintiff has not shown that giving a copy of the complaint

to counsel constitutes “service of the Government’s complaint” within the contemplation of Rule

C(6).1

 Moreover, Rule 55(a) allows entry of default as to “a party against whom a judgment for

affirmative relief is sought,” and the plaintiff has not shown that a potential claimant to seized

property is either a “party” or one “against whom affirmative relief is sought.” Accordingly, the

plaintiff’s request for entry of default, construed as a motion for entry of default, is denied

without prejudice.

 DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00398-WS-M Document 20 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                          PRIDE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X


     The schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  financial  statements for the three months ended February 28, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.

</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              nov-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 dec-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   feb-28-1998
<CASH>                                         24,064
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,142,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    179,268
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         30,879,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,308,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 40,456,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,991
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,995,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   40,456,024
<SALES>                                        3,581,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,581,077
<CGS>                                          2,552,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,552,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,679
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             575,810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (104,779)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (104,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (104,779)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)

        

</TABLE>
#### *A.*R. Hay *v.*W. G. Hunter.

Conveyance of Real Estate — Grantee Must Rely on His Warranty When Grantor Is Neither a Non-Resident nor Insolvent.

One who has accepted the conveyance of real estate, in the absence of fraud and where the grantor is neither a non-resident nor insolvent, must rely on his warranty and cannot resist the payment of a note given for such conveyance even if the wife of the grantor has not relinquished her dower.

APPEAL PROM CLINTON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 27, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Hay, having accepted the conveyance of Mayo, must rely on the warranty therein contained, and he cannot resist the payment of the note sued on, even if Mrs. Mayo had not relinquished her right to dower, without showing that Mayo was insolvent or a non-resident. *787But the conveyance shows that Mrs. Mayo did' relinguish her right to dower, and the recollection of the clerk on that subject cannot be allowed to override his official certificate.

*James B. Hays, for appellant. J. A. Brents, for appellee.*

There was no order of survey in the case. The witnesses evidently know little or nothing about the exact location of the boundary lines of the tract of land sold by Mayo to Hall. The court could not determine from their evidence that the twenty-five acres mentioned by Hall as having been shown to him by Mayo as part of the tract, are outside of the real boundaries. The agreement between Lane & Dalton cannot prejudice Hay, even if it can be upheld. He gets in value as much land from Lane as she gets from him.

. The other defect complained of is too insignificant to be taken into consideration in a contract in which a variation of two or three acres was evidently contemplated by the parties.

Judgment *affirmed.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with thereport of Gaiam, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2008, as filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vilia Valentine, ChiefFinancial 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, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2)     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Date:  March 12, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Vilia Valentine     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Vilia Valentine         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Andrew J. Smith *v.*Samuel Berry.

Practice — Instructions.

One failing to except to an order requiring liini to elect which of tlie causes of action lie will prosecute waives bis right to have this court pass upon the question.

Duty of Counsel.

Counsel should ask instructions upon such points as they desire, and when none are especially asked the court trying the cause has a right to assume that such as are given meets the views of counsel and upon an appeal this court will assume that the omission to give further instructions was assented to.

APPEAL PROM NICHOLAS CIRCUIT COURT.

November 16, 1876.

*Hargis & Norvell, for appellant. W. P. Ross, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

The appellant did not except to the order requiring him to elect which of the causes of action he would prosecute, and by failing to do so waived any right he might otherwise have had to insist in this court that said order was erroneous. Nor did he except to the single instruction given by the court or ask any instruction in respect to limitation, or anything else.

The bill of exceptions shows that “the parties asked the court to instruct the jury in the law of the case,” but no instructions were offered; nor does it appear that the appellant even suggested to the court the points upon which he desired to have the jury instructed. A party has no right thus to abandon his case to the court without suggesting what instructions he desires to have given, and then to ask this court to reverse the judgment because instructions which might have been proper were not given. It is the duty of counsel to ask instructions upon such points as they desire, and of the court to give or refuse them; and when none are specially asked for, the court trying the cause has a right to assume that such as are given meet the views of counsel, and that no others are desired; and upon an appeal this court will assume that the omission to give further instructions was assented to.

Judgment *affirmed.*
CSS - 3.31.2015 - EX 10.28




Exhibit 10.28
Amendment 2015-1 
to the 
CSS Industries, Inc. Change of Control 
Severance Pay Plan for Executive Management


WHEREAS, CSS Industries, Inc. (the “Company” or “CSS”) maintains the CSS Industries, Inc. Change of Control Severance Pay Plan for Executive Management (the “COC Plan”) for the benefit of certain of its executives, as specified in the COC Plan;


WHEREAS, the COC Plan was adopted for and on behalf of the Company on May 27, 2009 by the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee”);


WHEREAS, the COC Plan was amended by the Committee on March 20, 2012 to modify the definition of “Executive Management Employee” under the COC Plan;


WHEREAS, the Committee has determined to amend the COC Plan to further modify the definition of “Executive Management Employee” under the COC Plan;


NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the foregoing, effective as of March 17, 2015, the COC Plan is hereby amended as follows: 


		
	1.
	The definition of “Executive Management Employee” set forth in the “Definitions” section of the COC Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


Executive Management Employee: For purposes of this Plan, (A) any employee of CSS who has the title of Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer or General Counsel; and (B) any employee of CSS or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries who (i) has the title of Executive Vice President or Vice President of such entity and (ii) reports directly to CSS’ Chief Executive Officer.


2.    In all respects not amended, the COC Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, to record the adoption of this Amendment 2015-1 to the COC Plan, the Committee has caused the execution of this instrument on this 17th day of March 2015.


CSS INDUSTRIES, INC.




By: /s/ William G. Kiesling                      
       William G. Kiesling            
       Vice President – Legal and Human    
             Resources and General Counsel
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the  period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  each  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 Partnership.


                       /s/ Robert P Johnson
                           Robert P. Johnson, President
                           AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                           Managing General Partner
                           August 4, 2006



                       /s/ Patrick W Keene
                           Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                           AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                           Managing General Partner
                           August 4, 2006