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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,512
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                     10,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,549
<PP&E>                                          13,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,256
<BONDS>                                          5,304
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            77
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,800
<SALES>                                         12,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,101
<CGS>                                            7,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    104
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (22)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                126
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES C. MAIBEN, *

 *

 Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * Civil Action No. 12-00080-B

 *

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

1 *

Commissioner of Social Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

denying Plaintiff’s claim be REVERSED and REMANDED.

DONE this 30thday of September, 2013.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 1 Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013.

Pursuant to Rule 25(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be 

substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to 

continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g).

Case 1:12-cv-00080-B Document 26 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 1
No. 03-335

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2003 MT 257N

IN RE THE MATTER OF

JULIA J. VERMANDEL,

Deceased.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

In and for the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 03-0013

The Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Irene S. Atraqchi, Pro Se, Washington, D.C.

For Respondent:

Duncan A. Peete, Vicki L. McDonald; Moulton, Bellingham, 

Longo & Mather, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: August 21, 2003

 Decided: September 23, 2003

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk
2

Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as

a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,

Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to

West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court. 

¶2 The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, dismissed Irene

Atraqchi's "Petition" in this matter on the basis that Atraqchi failed to comply with Rule 4C,

M.R.Civ.P. Atraqchi appeals. We affirm.

¶3 The issue is whether the District Court erred in dismissing Atraqchi's "Petition" for

insufficiency of process. 

¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to our Order dated February 11,

2003, amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for

memorandum opinions. The issue is clearly controlled by settled Montana law. 

¶5 An appellant must support her argument with citations to the authorities, statutes and

pages of the record relied on. Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P. Failure to comply with Rule

23(a)(4), M.R.App.P., is fatal to an appeal. State v. Blackcrow, 1999 MT 44, ¶ 33, 293

Mont. 374, ¶ 33, 975 P.2d 1253, ¶ 33. Atraqchi has provided no authority for her argument

that mailing a copy of her "Petition" to the defendant's attorney--without issuance or service

of a summons--was proper service under the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4C(1),

M.R.Civ.P., requires that the plaintiff "shall present a summons to the clerk for issuance"
3

and Rule 4D(2), M.R.Civ.P., requires that "[t]he summons and complaint shall be served

together." [Emphasis supplied.] 

¶6 Affirmed.

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We concur:

/S/ JOHN WARNER

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ JIM RICE
#### Larry WELLMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jerrie Lynn Wellman, and on behalf of her brother; Larry Wellman, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. APPALACHIAN RESEARCH & DEFENSE FUND, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Applered Legal Aid Services; West Virginia Legal Services, Incorporated; West Virginia State Bar, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1025.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 22, 2001.

Larry Wellman, pro se. Thomas V. Flaherty, Scott H. Kaminski, Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, P.L.L.C., James Patrick Martin, West Virginia Legal Services Plan, Incorporated, David James Mincer, Bailey & Wyant, P.L .L.C., Charleston, WV, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Larry Wellman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and *152*find no*reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Wellman v. Appalachian Research & Defense Fund, Inc.,*No. CA-00-222-2 (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 12, 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.*
EXHIBIT 32.1


                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                  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 21st Century Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Arland D. Dunn, Chief Executive  Officer/President  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 based on 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.


Date: March 30, 2004


/s/ ARLAND D. DUNN
______________________________________
Arland D. Dunn
Chief Executive Officer/President




A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN  PROVIDED TO 21st CENTURY  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC.
AND WILL BE RETAINED BY 21st CENTURY  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC.  AND  FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ELAINE MAHAN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-00535-KD-B 

 ) 

MOBILE HOUSING BOARD, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the 

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and dated June 24, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

 DONE and ORDERED this the 12th day of July 2010. 

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

 KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00535-KD-B Document 30 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
             CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-53207, 333-53205, 33-88646, 33-93550, 33-93552, 33-93554, and 33-93556 of
Nabisco Holdings Corp. on Form S-8, of our report dated January 27, 1999,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nabisco Holdings Corp. and
Nabisco, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
Parsippany, New Jersey
 
March 19, 1999
Doral Financial Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Quarter EndedMarch 31, 2011Including Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    8,420Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    51,513Total Earnings
    
    $
    59,933Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    50,557Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    264An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    692Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    51,513Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.16Excluding Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    8,420Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    24,614Total Earnings
    
    $
    33,034Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    23,658Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    264An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    692Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    24,614Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.34
Exhibit 32.2

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.

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 Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Stanton, Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ John D. StantonJohn D. StantonPrincipal Financial Officer
January 25, 2011
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41046 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BRODERICK BRADSHAW, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 6:03-CR-58-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Broderick Bradshaw appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to use of a communication facility in committing a drug offense. He was sentenced to 34 months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. Bradshaw argues for the first time on appeal and pursuant to Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), that his sentence is illegal.No. 04-41046 -2- Bradshaw has not established plain error with regard to his Blakely and Booker claim because he has not established that being sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines scheme affected his substantial rights. The record does not indicate that the district court “would have reached a significantly different result” under a sentencing scheme in which the Guidelines were advisory only. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
#### Rufus *W.*Gillett and Theodore P. Hall v. The Detroit Board of Trade.

*Stipulation of facts a special verdict*— Negligence.

A stipulation of facts for purposes of judgment must be treated as a special verdict, and if it does not unequivocally show a liability tbe case must fail, as tbe burden of proof is on tbe plaintiff.

No liability for negligence can be established on a stipulation of facts wbicb states that tbe act complained of was due to mistake or negligence.

Case made before judgment from the Superior Court of Detroit.

Submitted June 15.

Decided June 22.

Trespass on the case. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*310
      *H. F. Brownson*for plaintiff in error.

*F. A. Baker*for defendant in error.

Marston, C. J.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant upon facts stipulated to by the attorneys of the respective parties. The facts as thus agreed upon we must treat as a special verdict, and unless the same, unequivocally, show a liability the plaintiffs must fail, as the burden of proof is upon them. In the sixth clause of the stipulated facts, it is said, that two ear loads were number two white wheat and that they were inspected by Mr. Hatch, the inspector, as number one white wheat, through some mistake or negligence on his part.

The liability of the defendant may depend upon a determination of the fact as to whether the inspector made a mistake, or was guilty of negligence. If he in fact inspected the wheat, and was mistaken in. his judgment in supposing and classifying as number one white wheat, what in fact was, or in the opinion of others was not number one but. wheat of an inferior grade, it can hardly be claimed that the defendant could be held liable for the damages resulting therefrom. The defendant’s liability, if liable at all, must depend upon an affirmative finding that Hatch did not simply make a mistake, but that he was guilty of negligence. If he through negligence, did not look at or inspect the wheat in these two cars, a very different case would be presented from one showing a mistake of judgment merely.

Without intimating any, opinion as to the liability of the defendant in either event, we are of opinion that no liability exists upon the case presented, and the judgment will be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
dlcr_ex1015.htm

EXHIBIT 10.15

 

 

 



 

	 
	1

	


	 


 



 

	 
	2

	


	 


 



 

3
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration
 AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment. Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 
                    *et seq.*), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
[12/5/2014 through 12/18/2014]
Firm name
Firm address
Date accepted for investigation
Product(s)Altratek Plastics
105 Gay Street, Longmont, CO 80501
12/18/2014
The firm manufactures plastic seals, pipes and tubes and housings produced for the automotive, water filtration, and transportation monitoring industries.
 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Dated: December 18, 2014. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.


[FR Doc. 2014-30188 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
Exhibit 13.2


CERTIFICATIONS
  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Internet Initiative Japan Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: July 19, 2011


Internet Initiative Japan Inc./s/ Akihisa WataiName:
Akihisa WataiTitle:
Director, Chief Financial Officer and

Chief Accounting Officer
#### In the Matter of AutoOne Insurance Company, Appellant, v Anthony Sarvis et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 457]

*825In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, AutoOne Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 3, 2012, which, after a framed issue hearing, denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When an insurer disclaims coverage, “the notice of disclaimer must promptly apprise the claimant with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated” *(General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci,*46 NY2d 862, 864 [1979]). “It is only in the event of noncompliance by both the insured *and*the injured claimant that the insurer may validly disclaim against the injured party” *(American Tr. Ins. Co. v Sartor,*3 NY3d 71, 77 n 2 [2004]). A disclaimer of coverage based only on the insured’s failure to comply with the notice provisions of a policy is ineffective against the injured party and the insurer will be precluded from subsequently disclaiming coverage on the ground that the injured party failed to comply with the policy’s notice provisions *(see General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci,*46 NY2d at 864; *Loeffler v Sirius Am. Ins. Co.,*82 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2011]; *Vacca v State Farm Ins. Co.,*15 AD3d 473, 474-475 [2005]; *Hereford Ins. Co. v Mohammod,*7 AD3d 490, 491 [2004]; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Joseph,*287 AD2d 724, 724-725 [2001]; *Hazen v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*286 AD2d 708, 709 [2001]; *Vanegas v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*282 AD2d 671, 671 [2001]; *Eagle Ins. Co. v Ortega,*251 AD2d 282, 283 [1998]; *United States Liab. Ins. Co. v Young,*186 AD2d 644, 645 [1992]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the disclaimer of coverage sent by the respondent New Hampshire Insurance Company (hereinafter NHIC), was not based solely on the insured’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of the subject policy *(compare Loeffler v Sirius Am. Ins. Co.,*82 AD3d at 1173), and it was otherwise sufficient to specifically apprise the injured claimant that “noncompliance by both the insured *and*the injured claimant” provided the basis for the disclaimer against the injured claimant *(American Tr. Ins. Co. v Sartor,*3 NY3d at77 n 2; *compare Vanegas v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*282 AD2d at 671; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Cooper,*303 AD2d 414, 414 [2003]). Contrary to the appellant’s further contentions, NHIC established that it was prejudiced by the injured claimant’s failure to provide timely notice *(see Vacca v State Farm Ins. Co.,*15 AD3d at 474-475), and NHIC’s disclaimer of coverage was timely *(see O’Garro v*
      *826
      *State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.,*96 AD3d 1027, 1028 [2012]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition. Dillon, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.