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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         436,852
<SECURITIES>                                 3,844,407
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,185,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                   135,227
<INVENTORY>                                  1,618,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,527,027
<PP&E>                                       2,267,494
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,525,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,164,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,910,167
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       640,955
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,437,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,164,431
<SALES>                                      3,564,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,564,165
<CGS>                                        1,199,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,199,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,306,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,057,775
<INCOME-TAX>                                   357,528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            700,247
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   700,247
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11



</TABLE>
nist.gov/nice

updated June 2023

Cybersecurity

Workforce Demand

global

shortage of

cybersecurity

professionals

3.4

million

Source: (ISC)2 2022 Cybersecurity Workforce Study

[ [ 663,434

1,129,659

cybersecurity

job openings

employed in the

cybersecurity workforce

Source: CyberSeek June 2023

of corporate

boards recommend

increasing IT 

security

headcount

83%

Source: Fortinet 2023

Cybersecurity Skills Gap

By 2025, lack of talent or

human failure will be responsible

for over half of significant

cybersecurity incidents

Source: Gartner Predicts 2023

Few business leaders in critical

sectors feel confident that they

have the talent they need

Source: WEF Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2023

Leaders identified the following skills as highly needed

Source: WEF Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2023

cloud

security

cyberthreat

intelligence

malware

analysis

46%

37%

34%

Top Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity Analyst

Soware Developer

Penetration & Vulnerability Tester

Cybersecurity Consultant

Network Engineer

Cybersecurity Manager

Systems Engineer

Senior Soware Developer

Systems Administrator

Source: CyberSeek January 2023

Job Titles

The Information Security Analyst

occupation will grow much faster than

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

35%

Growth the average job during 2021-2023

59% of technologists say hands-on learning

is the best way to apply new skills

Source: Pluralsight State

of Upskilling 2023

25%

20%

15%

14% Banking &

Capital

Markets

Energy Utilities

Public Sector

Insurance & Asset Management
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 24, 2009

s0217 

# Order

February 24, 2009

137524

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137524 COA: 284488 Wayne CC: 03-001961 KEVIN POTTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 29, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAURA MATTHEWS, )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

BROOKSTONE STORES, INC., et al., )

Defendants. )

 ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0369-WS-C

 )

BROOKSTONE STORES, INC., )

Third-Party Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

D&M SALES, INC., )

Third-Party Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Christopher Lozzio’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Revised First Amended Class Action Complaint (doc. 58). Lozzio maintains that the

claims against him should be dismissed for, inter alia, want of personal jurisdiction, inasmuch as

he asserts that he lacks sufficient contacts with the State of Alabama to be haled into court in this

forum. In an Order (doc. 66) dated December 22, 2005, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s

request to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery to investigate Lozzio’s contacts with

Alabama. Such jurisdictional discovery having concluded, plaintiff now submits a Response

(doc. 76) to the Motion to Dismiss, stating that she “consents to the dismissal of all claims

against Defendant Lozzio.” (Id., ¶ 1.) Thus, it appears that the parties are in agreement that

personal jurisdiction is lacking with respect to Lozzio, and that he therefore should be released

from this lawsuit without delay.

In light of plaintiff’s concurrence that dismissal of all claims against defendant Lozzio is

appropriate, the Motion to Dismiss (doc. 58) is hereby granted. All claims against defendant

Christopher Lozzio are dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk’s Office is directed to

Case 1:05-cv-00369-WS-C Document 79 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1 The dismissal is without prejudice because it is predicated on lack of personal

jurisdiction, not on the merits. To the extent that plaintiff wishes to file suit against Lozzio in

some other forum where personal jurisdiction would properly lie, nothing in this Order would

preclude her from doing so.

-2-

terminate Lozzio as a party to these proceedings.1

 However, nothing herein dismisses or

otherwise impairs plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants, Brookstone Stores, Inc.

and D&M Sales, Inc. This action shall proceed with respect to plaintiff’s claims against those

two remaining defendants, as well as the third-party claims leveled by Brookstone Stores, Inc.

against D&M Sales, Inc.

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00369-WS-C Document 79 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         109,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,745)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      11,674,592
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,595,383)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,241,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          319,354
<BONDS>                                      7,815,803
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,105,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,241,042
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,750,935
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,571,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             327,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (161,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (161,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (161,090)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Chidester, Adm’r, *v.*Chidester.

Decedents *Estates.—Claim- in. Favor of*Administrator.—An administrator is not authorized by the code of 1852 or by subsequent legislation to file a claim in his own favor against the estate which he administers; but section 802, p. 336, 2 G. & H. continues in force sec. 218, p. 526, of the Revised Statutes of 1843, which provides for the filing of such claims in the probate court; and when the court of common pleas became the successor of the probate court, it became the court for the adjudication of such claims.

APPEAL from the Cass Common Pleas.

Worden, J.

Peter Chidester was the administrator of the estate of Mary Chidester deceased. He filed a claim against the estate in his own favor, in the usual manner. The heirs of Mary Chidester appeared and filed an answer to the claim, and the cause was submitted to the court for trial, and the court allowed the claim in part. The heirs moved in arrest of judgment, but the motion was overruled and exception was duly taken. The only question in the cause is, whether an administrator can thus file a claim against the estate of which he is administrator, and have it passed upon.

We are not aware of any provision in the code of 1852, or in any subsequent legislation, that authorizes such a course. The statute gives a creditor a priority in the right of administration over a person not a creditor. 2 G. & H. 485. And yet it fails to provide any means of adjusting his claim against the estate. It is a clear case of omission. The code of 1843, R. S. 1843, p. 526, sec. 218, provides, that, “ if any debt or demand claimed by the executor or administrator as due to him from the deceased, shall be disputed by any person interested in the estate, the executor or administrator shall file in the probate court a statement of his claim in writing, setting forth distinctly and fully the nature and grounds thereof; and the person disputing the same may allege any matters of defence, which such deceased or his legal representatives might have alleged against the same; and the decision of such claim may be submitted to *470the court, or the same may be tried by a jury, as in other civil actions, and the verdict or decision thereon shall have the same force and effect as in other cases, reserving to either party the right of appeal, or to prosecute his writ of error to any superior court having jurisdiction.” ■

A. *T. McConnell*and *M. Winfield,*for appellant.

We are of opinion that this section is continued in force by the code of 1852. 2. G. & H. 336, sec. 802. The claim is, of course, to be filed in the court of common pleas, which takes the place of the probate court, and- the writ- of error is probably abolished. Otherwise the section seems to be entirely applicable to our present system,' and supplies an omission in the code of 1852. See *Hubbard*v. *Hubbard,*16 Ind. 25; *Lane*v. *Taylor,*40 Ind. 495; *Stanford Stanford, post*p. 485.

The proceedings below were in substantial compliance with the section above quoted, and there is no error in the record.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      770
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,142
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,323,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,326
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,323,740
<SALES>                                            400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (34,044)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,044)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI # I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000221

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ISETTE PIKAKE KAEHUAEA SMYTHE and JAMIE KALEINANI SMYTHE ESPRECION, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. EMMA NAOMI MEYERS aka NAOMI EMMA HOLT; BUSHROD G. MEYERS, Defendants-Appellants; and JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC161002245)

**SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER** (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

**Emma**Naomi Meyers and **Bushrod** G. Meyers (the **Meyerses** ) appeal from the " **Order**Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for a Writ of Ejectment" and the " **Writ**of Ejectment" entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit on March 1, 2019. 1 We affirm. This case is about land (the **Property** ) owned by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ( **DHHL** ). **Mervin**Smythe leased the Property from DHHL. The Meyerses lived there. After Mervin died there was a dispute between the Meyerses and Mervin's nieces, Isette Pikake Kaehuae Smythe and Jamie Kaleinani Smythe

1 The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided. Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000221 18-APR-2024 08:21 AM Dkt. 55 SONOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI # I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Esprecion (the **Nieces** ) over who would succeed to Mervin's lease. After a contested case hearing the Hawaiian Homes **Commission** ordered Mervin's lease transferred to Nieces, retroactive to June 26, 2012. Emma appealed. The circuit court affirmed. Emma filed a secondary appeal. We affirmed. Meyers v. Hawaiian Homes
Comm'n , No. CAAP-18-0000801, 2023 WL 4636728 (Haw. App. July 20, 2023) (mem.) ( **Meyers I** ). Nieces filed the complaint below against the Meyerses on December 9, 2016. The complaint alleged that Nieces were DHHL lessees; they acquired their interests from Mervin by order of the Commission; and the Meyerses lived on their property and refused to vacate. Nieces sought, among other things, a writ of ejectment. Nieces moved for partial summary judgment and a writ of ejectment. The Order and Writ were entered on March 1, 2019. This appeal followed. The Meyerses argue that the Commission erred by ordering that Nieces succeed to Mervin's lease. Emma, who was a party in Meyers I , and Bushrod, who is in privity with Emma, are precluded from challenging the Commission's Order. Bremer v.
Weeks , 104 Hawai # i 43, 53, 85 P.3d 150, 160 (2004). Even if claim or issue preclusion did not apply, the circuit court applied the correct law to the uncontroverted facts. The "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for a Writ of Ejectment" and the "Writ of Ejectment," both entered on March 1, 2019, are affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 18, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka E. Mason Martin III, Presiding Judge for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Ryan G.S. Au, Associate Judge for Plaintiffs-Appellees. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge

2
10993.

#### Russell *v.*City of Columbus.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Certiorari; from Muscogee superior court — Judge Howard. September 20, 1919.

*S. M. Davis,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. C. McCutchen,*contra.

Luke, J.

In this case no certified copy of the bond is attached to the petition for certiorari, nor does the petition set forth the essentia] facts that would enable the superior court judge to decide whether a proper bond was given, and, therefore, the case falls squarely within the rule laid down in *Gillespie*v. *Macon,*19 *Ga. App.*1 (90 S. E. 970), and cit. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 11


STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31,
                                            ----------------------------------------------
                                              1997      1996      1995      1994      1993
                                            ======    ======    ======    ======    ======
                                                (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<S>                                        <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>

PRIMARY
  Average shares outstanding                15,325    15,472    15,164    15,438    15,915
  Dilutive stock options -- based
    on the treasury stock method
    using average market price                 230       213        61        97       151
                                           -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
      TOTAL                                 15,555    15,685    15,225    15,535    16,066
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

Income from continuing operations          $13,666   $16,580   $11,281   $ 9,744   $12,444
Net income (loss)                           49,580    22,259    13,398    (2,509)   16,508
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
Income from continuing operations
  per share                                $  0.88   $  1.06   $  0.74   $  0.63   $  0.77
Net income (loss) per share                $  3.18   $  1.42   $  0.88   $ (0.16)  $  1.03
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
FULLY DILUTED
  Average shares outstanding                15,325    15,472    15,164    15,438    15,915
  Dilutive stock options -- based on
    the treasury stock method using
    the higher of year-end market
    price or average market price              302       262       148        99       164
  Assumed conversion of convertible
    subordinated debenture                      --        --        --        --        --
                                           -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
      TOTAL                                 15,627    15,734    15,312    15,537    16,079
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

Income from continuing operations          $13,666   $16,580   $11,281   $ 9,744   $12,444
Net income (loss)                           49,580    22,259    13,398    (2,509)   16,508
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
Income from continuing operations
  per share                                $  0.88   $  1.06   $  0.74   $  0.63   $  0.77
Net income (loss) per share                $  3.18   $  1.42   $  0.88   $ (0.16)  $  1.03
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Pacific Housing Tax Credit
Housing Fund II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Irwin J. Deutch, Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership,
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
Partnership.



/s/ Irwin J. Deutch
----------------------------------
Irwin J. Deutch
President, Chief Executive Officer
July 5, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sean M. Cary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards
Inc.

Date: December 6, 2004
By:    /s/ Sean M. Cary
Name: Sean M. Cary
Title:   Chief Financial Officer