alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<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 condensed
consolidated  financial  statements for the three months ended February 28, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       


<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           feb-28-1997
<CASH>                                                 29,606 
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,846,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            1,410,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0
<PP&E>                                                 26,178,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                         4,431,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         34,338,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               3,991
<OTHER-SE>                                             5,875,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           34,338,659
<SALES>                                                3,739,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       3,739,842
<CGS>                                                  3,124,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          2,124,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       158,296
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     357,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (305,972)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (305,972)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (305,972)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.15)
        


</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (6) | the Report fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (7) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Tony Liu  
|Name:          |  | Tony Liu               
|Title:         |  | Chief Executive Officer
|March 5, 2008 
|              
|/s/ Yanchun Li
|Name:          |  | Yanchun Li             
|Title:         |  | Chief Financial Officer
|March 5, 2008 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request. This exhibit is not filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead
furnished as provided by applicable rules of the SEC.
#### Commonwealth for Satterly, et al., *v.*Harrison M. Demaree, et al.

Limitations — Pleadings—Waiver.

The statute of limitations cannot be invoked to escape liability by one who within the five years prior to the beginning of the action has recognized his obligation to pay and made payments thereon.

Pleadings — W aiver.

The failure of plaintiff to have sued upon the new-promise instead of the old is cured by defendant’s answer.

APPEAL FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 23, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The plea of limitation bars this action as to all the appellees except the deputy sheriff, Hall. This is not such an action as can be maintained on the sheriff’s bond. He in no sense violated his official duty in collecting the two executions in favor of Demaree, nor in failing to return the money to appellant, in view of the fact that Demaree improperly sued out the executions, and had no legal right to receive the amount collected, without first releasing Neman & Co.’s attachment. The sheriff might, by recognizing appellants' *12claim, impose upon himself a personal, but not an official, obligation to return the money. The right of action growing out of this personal obligation is barred, by .the lapse of five years without suit.

*W. H.*Hays, *for appellant.*

The difficulty with Hall is that within five years he has distinctly and unmistakably recognized his obligation to repay the money; and his answer shows that since the institution of the suit he has made payments on the claim. Such unequivocal recognitions of his obligation to return the money takes the case out of the statute as to him..

It is true that appellants ought to have sued on the new promise, but the error in this regard is cured by the answer. ,As it is evident the case went off upon the statute of limitations, we deem it unnecessary to notice the pleas of judgment, and the set-offs pleaded by Hall.

The judgment is *reversed*as to Hall, and the cause remanded for further proper proceedings. As to the remaining appellees, the judgment is *affirmed.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0586

_________________

STEVE BARRETT, ROBERT KNIGHT; 

MONTANA FEDERATION OF PUBLIC 

EMPLOYEES; DR. LAWRENCE PETTIT; 

MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FACULTY 

ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES;

FACULTY SENATE OF MONTANA STATE 

UNIVERSITY, DR. JOY C. HONEA; DR. 

ANNJEANETTE BELCOURT; DR. FRANKE 

WILMER; MONTANA PUBLIC INTEREST 

RESEARCH GROUP; ASHLEY PHELAN; 

JOSEPH KNAPPENBERGER; and MAE NAN 

ELLINGSON,

 Plaintiffs, Appellees,

 and Cross-Appellants,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, GREG GIANFORTE; 

and AUSTIN KNUDSEN,

 Defendants and Appellants.

O R D E R

_________________

Cody S. Barnett, of Lansdowne, Virginia, has petitioned for permission to appear 

pro hac vice before this Court in the above-entitled cause.

Having reviewed the application and having determined that, as required by our 

Rules for Admission to the Bar of Montana, Petitioner Barnett is currently in good standing 

with another state jurisdiction in which Barnett is admitted to the practice of law, Montana 

counsel listed in the application is in good standing with the State Bar of Montana, and this 

is the first appearance of Petitioner and the fourth appearance of Petitioner’s firm under the 

pro hac vice rules, with good cause showing under Rule VI(C),

02/22/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0586
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application of Cody S. Barnett to appear pro

hac vice in the above-entitled cause is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Cody S. Barnett, to all counsel 

of record in this appeal, and to the State Bar of Montana.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 22 2023
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 9, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE BALDWIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

No. 11-1457

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-01647-LTB)

(D. Colorado)

v.

CSPO OFFICER O’CONNOR, #2057;

D.D.A. GAIL S. WARKENTIN,

#23429; JUDGE BARNEY IUPPA,

#002799,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Clarence Baldwin is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department

of Corrections. He filed a claim in the United States District Court for the

District of Colorado under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his

constitutional rights by the police officer who arrested him, the deputy district

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 
attorney who prosecuted him, and the district-court judge who presided in his

case. His claims included illegal search and seizure, violations of due process,

subjection to double jeopardy, and prosecutorial misconduct. The only relief he

sought was damages. The district court dismissed his claims without prejudice

under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Mr. Baldwin appeals. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The district court’s opinion properly applied Heck. It recognized that Heck

bars any claim for damages if the claim’s success “would necessarily imply the

invalidity of [the] conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. at 487. It also noted that the

success of a search-and-seizure claim “would not necessarily imply that the

plaintiff’s conviction was unlawful,” id. n.7, but that Mr. Baldwin could recover

damages only if he could “prove not only that the search was unlawful, but that it

caused him actual, compensable injury, . . . which . . . does not encompass the

‘injury’ of being convicted and imprisoned.” Id. Discerning that Mr. Baldwin

did not allege any injury other than his conviction, the court concluded that Heck

required the dismissal of all claims. 

On appeal Mr. Baldwin does not challenge the district court’s

characterization of his allegations. He merely reiterates that his current

incarceration is unlawful. We therefore hold that the dismissal below was proper. 

-2-
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Mr. Baldwin’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Mr. Baldwin shall pay the entire filing

fee for this appeal forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

-3-
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40228

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD MCDONALD

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-33-ALL

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Edward McDonald has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). McDonald has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of McDonald’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 16, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40228

2

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

McDonald’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1953

In Re: THOMAS JOSEPH DALTON, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(2:03-cr-00739-DCN-1) 

Submitted: February 24, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas Joseph Dalton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Thomas Joseph Dalton petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

asserting excessive delay and seeking an order directing the 

district court to rule on his case following remand from this 

court for resentencing. As the district court has appointed new 

counsel for Dalton and has directed the U.S. Marshal to 

transport Dalton to the court for resentencing, we deny the 

mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
#### Ronald M. GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUNTLEIGH CORPORATION; James Williams; David Trent; Lonnie Pompey, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1014.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 22, 2001.

*151Ronald M. Green, pro se. Thomas Edward Berry, Jr., McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody *&*McCarthy, St. Louis, MO; Sharon Maitland Moon, Vivay Kumar Mago, Leclair Ryan, P.C., Richmond, VA, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ronald M. Green appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his employment discrimination and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 West Supp. 2000) complaint and his motions for reconsideration. His appeal is timely only as to the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Green v. Huntleigh Corp.,*No. CA-00-371-2 (E.D.Va. Dec. 15, 2000). 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.*
Abatement Order filed June 27, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00835-CR

____________

AMIT DINESH PATEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-DCR-064467

ABATEMENT ORDER

On June 12, 2019, appellant and the State filed a joint motion to abate the 

appeal and remand for plea negotiations. The parties state that they have reach an 

agreement regarding appellant’s probation, which they intend to present to the trial 

court for approval. The parties contend appellant will dismiss the appeal if the trial 

court approves a punishment of “shock probation.” The motion is GRANTED. The 

trial court is ordered to hold a hearing on the parties’ agreement within 60 days 

from the date of this order. A hearing record and a supplemental clerk’s record 

reflecting the trial court’s judgment and any documents filed pursuant to the plea 

negotiations are to be filed within 15 days of that hearing. 
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

hearing record and supplemental clerk’s record are filed with this Court. The 

Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by 

either party, or the Court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.
First Department,

November, 2013

(November 7, 2013)

#### FNF Touring LLC, Respondent, v Transform America Corp., Defendant, and Chester Asher, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 367]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered June 19, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Chester Asher’s motion to dismiss the fraud claim asserted against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Asher dismissing the complaint as against him.

Plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant Transform America Corp., under which plaintiff was to produce a musician to perform at a benefit concert and meet with up to 40 VIP guests, in exchange for $25,000 and reimbursement of certain expenses. After paying a $12,500 deposit, Transform America cancelled the concert one day before it was scheduled to occur and refused to pay plaintiff the balance claimed under the contract. Alleging that Transform America cancelled the event due to insufficient funding, plaintiff commenced this action against Transform America and its director and president, defendant Asher, asserting causes of action for breach of contract and fraud. The breach of contract claim as against Asher has been dismissed.

To plead a claim for fraud, the complaint must allege “ *‘a*misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury’ ” *(Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein,*16 NY3d *402173, 178 [2011], quoting *Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney,*88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). A claim rooted in fraud must be pleaded with the requisite particularity under CPLR 3016 (b) *(see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc.,*10 NY3d 486 [2008]).

Even accepting for the purpose of the motion that defendant Asher was the one who allegedly misrepresented that Transform America had the financial capacity to perform the contract, plaintiff does not plead facts sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that the statement was made with fraudulent intent to induce plaintiffs reliance to its detriment. Indeed, plaintiffs admissions that Transform America had paid the $12,500 deposit, scheduled press interviews and a “meet and greet,” and was relying on ticket sales to pay the balance due plaintiff undermines a finding of fraudulent intent. Furthermore, “[a]bsent a confidential or fiduciary relationship, there is no duty to disclose, and [a defendant’s] mere silence, without identifying some act of deception, does not constitute a concealment actionable as fraud” *(see NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v 573 Jackson Ave. Realty Corp.,*55 AD3d 454, 454 [1st Dept 2008], *affd*13 NY3d 573 [2009]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the issue of whether Asher is entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 720-a *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [11]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
11660.

#### Roberts *v.*Bagwell Manufacturing Company.

Decided January 25, 1921.

Certiorari; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. April 28, 1920.

*Strozier &*Moore, *J. 8. Ayers,*for plaintiff in error.

*Martin &*Martin, contra.

Luke, J.

The verdict in this case was rendered upon conflicting evidence, and was not without evidence to support it. A reading of the charge of‘the trial court in its entirety relieves the charge from the criticisms urged by the plaintiff in error as .to portions of it. There was no error requiring a reversal of the judgment overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworfh, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32








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








Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted), Bryan P. Healey, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Kent Financial Services, Inc., (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2012, (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;





and





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








Dated:                      August 10, 2012




/s/ Bryan P. Healey


Bryan P. Healey


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and


Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT
32


SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS




The
undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medis
Technologies Ltd. (the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.









Dated:
      March 31, 2009/s/
      Jose
      MejiaJose
      MejiaChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer






/s/
      Michael
      ResnickMichael
      ResnickSenior
      Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
<PAGE>

                   EXHIBIT 32.2 -- SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Andrew A. Campbell, certify that:

     (1) the Form 10-K/A of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended December 31,
         2003, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a)
         or sec.15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.

/s/ ANDREW A. CAMPBELL
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew A. Campbell
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

March 16, 2004
------------------------------------------------------
Date

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.