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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                       5,004,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  297,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    750,398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,062,807
<PP&E>                                         791,157
<DEPRECIATION>                                 684,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,219,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,434
<BONDS>                                          5,422
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       163,701
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,577,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,219,351
<SALES>                                        176,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200,200
<CGS>                                          171,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,559,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,028
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (752,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (752,777)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (752,777)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Each of the undersigned, Alan J. Lacy, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Sears, Roebuck and Co. (the
Company), and Glenn R. Richter, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, has executed this certification in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 3, 2004 (the Report). Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. August 10, 2004 /s/ Alan J. Lacy

Alan J. Lacy
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer
 /s/ Glenn R. Richter

Glenn R. Richter
Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
#### Adams *v.*Spivey.

Where tenants in common agree by parol upon a partition, defining in the agreement the boundaries of the part assigned to each in severalty, and each enters into possession, thus executing the agreement, the partition clothes each with a perfect equity and is thus the equivalent of legal title; and on such title recovery may be had in ejectment, or in a statutory action for land, against one who subsequently enters without a better title.

August 14, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

Complaint for land. Before Judge Bartlett. Jasper superior court. September term, 1893.

A. M. Speer and J. II. Holland, for plaintiff.

Mrs. Adams sued Spivey for a lot in the town of Machen. A nonsuit was granted, and plaintiff*excepted. It appears from the evidence, among other things, that the lot in dispute is a part of land left by the will of Matthew Whitfield to his four grandsons equally. On December 29, 1869, one of these grandsons conveyed his interest to Hill. In 1874 Hill and the other three legatees agreed upon a division of the lands, and the same were divided by commissioners; but whether they made a written report or the agreement was in writing does not appear. After the division each party went into the possession of the part allotted to him. On March 23, 1875, Hill made to plaintiff* the deed under which she claims the lot in dispute. He died in that year. A survey and plat were made for her, which plat was in evidence; and there was considerable testimony as to boundary lines, which need not be recited here.
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

04-3246

ARISTIDES PLATO, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________ ________________ DECI DED: March 11, 2005

__________________________ Before MAYER, Circuit Judge , PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge , and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge

. PER CURIAM. Aristides Plato (“Plato”) appeals the decis ion of the Merit S ystems Protection Board dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. Plato v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , DC0831-02-0672-I-1 (MSPB July 7, 2002). We affirm

. The board issued a show cause order to Plato requesting that he provide proof that the Office of Pers onnel Management (“OPM”) had issu ed a final decision in his case, a prerequisite to board jurisdiction. See 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1) (2000); 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109 to .110 (2004). Plato did not res pond to this order and failed otherwise tooffer proof that OPM had issued a final dec ision. See Minor v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 819 F.2d 280, 282 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (noting that petitioner has the burden of showing jurisdiction). Therefore, the board was c o rre ct to dismiss Plat o’s case for lack of jurisdiction.

04-3246 2
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION



This certification is provided pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the “Report”) for
the period ended December 31, 2015 of Banco Latinoamericano de Comercio Exterior, S.A. (the “Company”).



I, Christopher Schech, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods presented.
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 29, 2016



|By:                     | 
|----------------------- | 
|/s/ Christopher Schech  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |
#### State v. McLaughlin

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 474

No. 648P06

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 CCOA06-212)

2. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question

1. Denied 08/23/07

2. Dismissed *ex mero motu*08/23/07
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**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 on Form 10-Q of Shelter Properties II (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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 Partnership.

 

 
|   |      /s/Steven D. Cordes  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: Steven D. Cordes                             |
|   | Date: August 13, 2009                              |
|   |                                               |
|   |      /s/Stephen B. Waters |
|   | Name: Stephen B. Waters                            |
|   | Date: August 13, 2009                              |

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 Report of Triple A Medical, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his 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 operation of the Company.





/s/ P. MORGAN
      MCCUNE
              P.
      Morgan McCune
              Sole
      Member of the Board of Directors
              Dated:
      October 21, 2008
              
              
              /s/ P. MORGAN
      MCCUNE
              P.
      Morgan McCune
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Dated:
      October 21, 2008
              
              
              /s/ P. MORGAN
      MCCUNE
              P.
      Morgan McCune
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              Dated:
      October 21, 2008
              
              
              /s/ P. MORGAN
      MCCUNE
              P.
      Morgan McCune
              Principal
      Accounting Officer
              Dated:
      October 21, 2008




This
certification accompanies the 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.
EXHIBIT 10.40(b)


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Third
Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into effective as of this
1st day of October, 2004, by and between LECG, LLC, a California limited
liability company with a business address of 2000 Powell Street, Suite 600,
Emeryville, California 94608 (“LECG”) and David J. Teece (“Teece”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.                               LECG
and Teece entered into an Employment Agreement dated October 27, 1997, which
was first amended by letter agreement dated August 5, 2002, and further amended
by that certain Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated September 30,
2003 (collectively, the “Employment Agreement.”)


 


B.                                 LECG
and Teece wish to further amend the Employment Agreement to reflect certain
agreed upon terms of Teece’s employment with LECG.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Employment
Agreement as follows:


 


1.                                      Compensation
for Consulting Services.  As a
Director providing consulting services to LECG, Teece is entitled to
compensation in the form of Director Earnings which consist of Fee Pass-Through
Earnings.  Effective October 1, 2004
through December 31, 2004, and continuing each calendar year thereafter, for
engagements brought to LECG through Teece’s exclusive efforts (personally or
through Enterprise Research, Inc.) or jointly with other experts or staff in
the firm, the Fee Pass-Through Earnings will be 90% of Teece’s billing rate for
each hour billed to clients and collected by LECG.


 


2.                                      No
Further Amendments.  Except as
set forth in this Third Amendment, the Employment Agreement has not been
modified and remains in full force and effect as of the date hereof.


 


[INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK]


 
















 


3.                                      Counterparts.  This Agreement may be signed in two or more
counterparts, each signed by one or more of the parties hereto so long as each
party shall sign at least one counterpart of this Agreement, all of which taken
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Signatures delivered by facsimile or in
electronic file format will be treated in all respects as originals.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LECG and Teece have executed this Third Amendment
to Employment Agreement effective on the date first written above.


 


 


	
  LECG, LLC,

  	
   

  
	
  a California limited liability company

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ MARVIN A. TENENBAUM

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Marvin A. Tenenbaum

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  General Counsel

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ DAVID J. TEECE

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  David J. Teece

  	
   

  
					



 


2
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF
THE TRUSTEE*
OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350
  1.
    
    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 (as explained in Note 1
to the Trusts financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with
Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47, released September
16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from
generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other
royalty trusts); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Lee Ann Anderson

Lee Ann AndersonTitle:
    
    Vice President and Senior Trust OfficerDate:
    
    November 10, 2008
 
 *
    
    The Trust has no executive officers.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 19, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23328-23329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11582]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MD Docket No. 08-65, FCC 09-21]


Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission 
corrects an inadvertent typographical error regarding the effective 
date that was published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2009. The 
correct effective date

[[Page 23329]]

should have read July 15, 2009 instead of July 13, 2009.

DATES: Effective May 19, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 
Director at (202) 418-0444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a correction in the effective date 
of the Order FCC 09-21 that was published in the Federal Register on 
May 12, 2009 (74 FR 22104). Accordingly, this document corrects the 
effective date as indicated below.
    In rule FR Doc. E9-10987 published on May 12, 2009, 74 FR 22104 
make the following correction. On page 22104, in the second column, 
correct the DATES section to read:

    DATES: Effective July 15, 2009, which pursuant to section 
9(b)(3) of the Communications Act, is 90 days from date of 
notification to Congress.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-11582 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles A. Dingle, Appellant, v James T. Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 1440.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 12*NY3d 714 (2009)].
<PAGE>
<TABLE>



                         						 EXHIBIT 12(b)


          			  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
				                         AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
			              SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


<CAPTION>
                                                        								   Year Ended

(millions, except ratios)                            1996       1995       1994       1993
<S>                                                   <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>

Fixed Charges
  Interest and amortization of debt discount
   and expense on all indebtedness                  $1,365     $1,373     $1,279     $1,318

  Add interest element implicit in rentals             121        119        114        105
                                          						     1,486      1,492      1,393      1,423
  Preferred dividend factor                             41         89        234        209
  Interest capitalized                                   5          4          1          3
Total fixed charges                                 $1,532     $1,585     $1,628     $1,635

Income (loss)
  Income (loss) from continuing operations          $1,271     $1,025       $857       $625
  Deduct undistributed net income (loss)
   of unconsolidated companies                           8          9         (7)         6
                                          						     1,263      1,016        864        619
Add
  Fixed charges (excluding interest capitalized
   and preferred dividend factor)                    1,486      1,492      1,393      1,423
  Income taxes (benefit)                               834        703        614        329
    Income (loss) before fixed charges and
     income taxes                                   $3,583     $3,211     $2,871     $2,371

Ratio of income to combined fixed charges
 and preferred share dividends                        2.34       2.03       1.76       1.45



In 1996, all the 8.88% Preferred Shares, First Series were redeemed and therefore in 1997
the Company made no other preferred share dividend payments.


</TABLE>
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



The undersigned, David E. Pearson, Chief Financial Officer of Telos
Corporation (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, (the
Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |  |  | 
|--------------- |  |  |  | 
|                |  |  | 
|August 14, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                |  |  |  |
#### Watson *v.*Long *et al.*

Where the first order fixed the time for hearing the motion for a new trial and granted leave “until the hearing” to make out and file a brief of the evidence, and by subsequent successive orders different times were fixed for the hearing and it was expressly provided that within a time limited by each the brief of evidence should be approved, and it not appearing that any brief was presented for approval until after all these limitations had expired, a further continuance, granted at the term succeeding that to which *256the hearing had last been continued, did not necessarily carry with it the right on the part of the movant to have the brief of evidence approved at the time fixed for the heaping by this last order, as against an unwillingness of the judge then to exercise the power of approval. His refusal to approve the brief after a lapse of nearly eighteen months from the date of trial was. not error. Whether, as a mere question of legal power, his approval would have been valid or not, it was certainly not an abuse of discretion to decline to approve the brief after such a lapse of time.

August 6, 1894.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Janes. Douglas county. December 21, 1898.

McBride & Brown and W. T. Roberts, for plaintiff in error. Adamson & Jackson, *contra.*

Lumpkin, Justice.

Error was assigned upon the refusal of the trial judge to approve a brief of evidence, and to a judgment dismissing a motion for a new trial. The facts are briefly .summarized in the bead-note.

Granting that the judge had the legal power to approve the brief of evidence, we cannot say that declining, under the circumstances, to exercise it was an abuse •of discretion. Nearly eighteen months had elapsed from the date of the trial until the time when the judge was finally asked to approve the brief. It may have been impossible for him, at that time, either to know himself or be able to ascertain whether or not in point ■of fact the brief was correct. Indeed, it is hardly probable that he remembered the evidence as given upon the :stand. Under these circumstances, we do not feel constrained to compel him to do something which he may not be able to do conscientiously.

We will take this occasion to remark that there is little or no excuse for such delay in having a brief ■of evidence perfected and approved. Instances like the present are becoming of too frequent occurrence. With .great respect and in all kindness to our professional *257brethren, we earnestly suggest that they attend to matters of this kind with more diligence and promptness. By so doing they will relieve themselves of much trouble and anxiety, and spare this court much unnecessary labor. *Judgment affirmed.*