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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,929,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               53,226,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (11,760,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,395,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    44,228,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,395,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,993,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               649,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,344,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,344,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,344,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, J. Douglas Ramsey,Chief Financial Officer of EXCO Resources, Inc., certify that:

1.                                     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of EXCO Resources, Inc.;

2.                                     Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.                                     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.                                     The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5.                                     The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

 
| Date:  November 6, 2007 | /s/ J. DOUGLAS RAMSEY         |   |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                         | J. Douglas Ramsey             |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer  |

 

1

----
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 3, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1489 Lower Tribunal No. 92-12914A

________________ 

### Edwin Alexander Whitehead,

Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge. Edwin Alexander Whitehead, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
12041.

#### White *v.*The State.

Decided March 8, 1921.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Kichmond superior court — Judge Hammond. December 11, 1920.

White was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act. From the evidence it appeared that between 12 and 1 o’clock in the day an automobile running at unlawful speed in the City of Augusta struck a child who had just run out of a factory gate into the street, and killed the child, knocking him about 10 feet off, after which it “slowed up ” and continued on its way. An eye-witness took down the number of the machine, but did not recognize the driver. The defendant was seen by others near that time and in that neighborhood in an automobile bearing the same number. Alibi was the main defense.

*Archibald Blackshear,-ior*plaintiff in error.

*A. L. Franklin, solicitor-general, John M. Graham,,*contra.

Luke, J.

Tlie evidence in this case fully authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge.

The special grounds of a motion for a new trial which complain of excerpts from the charge of the court, when the charge of the court is read in its entirety, are without merit.

The newly discovered evidence is not such as would he likely to produce a different verdict upon another trial of the case.

The defendant has had a legal trial, and for no reason appearing in the record was it error for the court to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
#### Jefferson L. Branch, Plaintiff, *v.*New York Central Railroad Company, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Erie County,

April 18, 1924.

Pleadings — complaint —• complaint based on claims of consignors of freight shipments for damages caused by delay in transportation may not be amended to set up causes of action predicated on claims of consignees arising from same causes — uniting causes of action not warranted.

A complaint in an action based on claims of consignors of merchandise for damages by reason of delays or improper handling in the transportation thereof may not be amended so that it will set up causes of action predicated upon claims of the consignees of the same merchandise arising from'the same causes, since the two sets of actions cannot coexist.

Nor is the uniting of the causes of action warranted by the fact that the consignors and the consignees severally assigned their causes of action to the plaintiff.

Motion for permission to serve amended complaint.

*George Graham Smith,*for the plaintiff.

*Rann, Vaughan, Brown & Sturtevant [Mark N. Turner*of counsel], for the defendant.

Norton, J.:

This motion for permission to serve the proposed amended complaint should be denied.

The original complaint sets up five causes of action, all based upon claims of consignors of merchandise for damages caused by delays or improper handling in transportation thereof. As plaintiff proposes to amend the complaint, it will still set up such causes of action, and will also set up causes of action based upon the claims of the consignees of such merchandise for the damages caused by such alleged delays or improper handling in transportation thereof. The two sets of causes of action cannot coexist; either the title to the merchandise was in the consignees and theirs are the causes of action, or the title to the merchandise was in the consignors and theirs are the causes of action.

The fact that the consignees and the consignors have severally .assigned their alleged causes of action to the proposed plaintiff does not warrant the uniting of causes of action, which on the face of the pleading plainly cannot be coexistent.

The motion is, therefore, denied.
Exhibit 31.1
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Herman M. Frietsch, certify that:
(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TeraForceTechnology Corporation; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 6, 2004                                  /s/ HERMAN M. FRIETSCH   Herman M. Frietsch   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32

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  First   Litchfield   Financial
Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  we, Joseph J. Greco,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  and Carroll A. Pereira,  Principal  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

      (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/ Joseph J. Greco                              /s/ Carroll A. Pereira
-------------------                              ----------------------
Joseph J. Greco                                  Carroll A. Pereira
President and Chief Executive Officer            Principal Financial Officer
August 12, 2005                                  August 12, 2005

The foregoing  certificate  is furnished  solely for purposes of complying  with
Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  for  no  other  purpose
whatsoever.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any
of the Company's  previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  that might incorporate the
Company's  future  filings,  including  this Report on Form 10-Q, in whole or in
part,  this  Certificate  shall not be  incorporated  by reference into any such
filings.


                                       36
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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  CreditRiskMonitor.com,  Inc. ("CRM")
on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ended  September  30,  2005,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Jerome
S. Flum, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

      (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.


                                           By: /s/ Jerome S. Flum
                                                   Jerome S. Flum
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2005


                                       21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA A. REYNOLDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0235-CG-B

)

MEGAN BRENNAN,

United States Postmaster General,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having 

been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated July 14, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of 

this Court. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is DENIED and the 

Defendant’s Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 19) is 

GRANTED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 29th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00235-CG-N Document 29 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF SPINNAKER EXPLORATION COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Spinnaker Exploration Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger L. Jarvis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to my knowledge, 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/    ROGER L. JARVIS
|Name:                  |  | Roger L. Jarvis        
|Title:                 |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                  |  | March 14, 2005         



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Spinnaker Exploration Company and will be retained by Spinnaker Exploration Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMMY CHAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-95-33)

Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sammy Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Kristopher Todd Hagins, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sammy Chavis appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to compel the Government to move for a downward

departure. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See United States v. Chavis, No. CR-95-33 (D.S.C.

Mar. 9, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DRAPER FRANK WOODYARD, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 12-0566-WS-N

 )

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of the 

Magistrate Judge and the objections of the plaintiff thereto. (Docs. 67, 69).1 After due 

and proper consideration of all portions of the file deemed relevant to the issues raised, 

and after de novo review of the petitioner’s objections, the R&R made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(3) and dated August 22, 2014 is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

1. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (29-31), is denied as to the 

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against defendant David Leggett in 

his individual capacity;

2. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to all other 

claims, which are dismissed with prejudice; and

3. The plaintiff’s motion for order of judgment, (Doc. 47), construed as a motion 

for sanctions, is denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2014. 

 

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 The plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his objection. (Doc. 70). To the extent the 

plaintiff seeks to clarify that he does not object to the grant of summary judgment as to defendant 

Givens, (id. at 2), the motion is granted. To the extent the plaintiff seeks leave to file future, 

additional objections to the R&R, or seeks any other relief, the motion is denied. 

Case 1:12-cv-00566-WS-N Document 71 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 1
#### W. G. Kirk *v.*John Reynolds.

Suit on Contract — Specific Execution — Tender of Deed.

Where a suit is brought for a specific execution of contract and the petition shows plaintiff is not in a condition to perform his part of it, and fails to aver that he has the legal title to the land, or tenders a deed to his vendee, such suit must fail.

APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT.

March 9, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The pleadings in this case do not authorize the judgment rendered. *420The plaintiff below expressly charges in his petition that his contract for the purchase of the land was only executory with G. W. Howell, whose title to the land was possessory. Having had the continuous adverse possession for more than twenty years, he further avers that G. W. Howell is dead, and the legal title to the land was at the time in the heirs of said Howell, all of whom are made defendants, and through whom he seeks to perfect his title.

*I. B.*White, *for appellant.*

Moreover, he avers that the price he agreed to pay Howell for the land was $225, of which sum he paid down $200, the remaining $25 to be paid when a title was made to him for the land. And he neither alleges that the title had ever been made to him, nor that he had paid the residue of the purchase money. There is some evidence in the cause conducing to prove that he paid all the purchase money; but such evidence of payment, without a direct averment to that effect, is wholly unavailable. A commissioner’s deed purporting to convey the title of Howell’s heirs to appellee, Reynolds, is found in the papers; but there is no allegation in the petition that the legal title had been conveyed to Reynolds; nor is there any mention made of the existence of such a deed in the pleadings. Even, therefore, if the deed was effectual to pass the legal title to Reynolds (a question we do not decide), before Reynolds could use the deed to show the fact, he must allege that he has the title.

But there is still another fatal objection to the judgment. Reynolds brought this suit for a specific execution of the contract and he shows by his own peition that he was not in a condition to perform his part of it, and never avers he has the legal title to the land, or tenders a deed to his vendee, which, as has been repeatedly decided by this court, he must do before he can ask the chancellor to help him, and enforce his lien. Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. Reynolds should be allowed to amend his pleadings, and on his failure to do so in reasonable time his petition should be dismissed.