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

<ARTICLE>              5
<CIK>                  0000821172
<NAME>                 MEDIZONE CANADA LIMITED
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                          16,323
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                      857
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                17,180
<PP&E>                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  17,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              438
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                         2,250
<OTHER-SE>                      14,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    17,180
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     0
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 3,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (3,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    (3,717)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-97063, 333-06419, 333-41321, 333-67841, 333-85105, 333-107738, 333-127163 on Form S-8, Registration Statement Nos. 333-38105, 333-46395 and 333-104277 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-114475 on Form S-4 of ourreport relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Epicor Software Corporation (“the Company”) dated March 31, 2006, (which expressed an unqualified opinion and included an explanatory paragraph relatingto the restatement described in Note 16) and our report on internal control over financial reporting dated March 31, 2006 (which expressed an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reportingbecause of a material weakness) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Epicor Software Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Costa Mesa, California 

March 31, 2006
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50977 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR RAMIREZ-FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-01-CR-284-ALL-WWJ

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Oscar Ramirez-Fernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ramirez-Fernandez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)that should have been alleged in his indictment. RamirezFernandez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment whichNo. 01-50977 -2- charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Ramirez-Fernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.2

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 periodic report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
August 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip S. Chan, Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§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 result of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 21, 2010 |  | /s/ Philip S. Chan                                  
|                      |  | Philip S. Chan                                      
|                      |  | Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|                      |  | Dynacq Healthcare, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner** 

**v. HOPKIN T. ROWLANDS, JR.,**  **Respondent :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 2112 Disciplinary Docket No. 3**

**No. 115 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No.**  **1818 (Luzerne County)** 

O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW **, this 30 th**  **day of January, 2015, upon consideration of the Repor t and**  **Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated October 21, 2014, the Petition for**  **Review and responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Hopkin T. Rowlands, Jr., is suspended from**  **the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day a**  **nd he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.**  **It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board**  **pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E. The Motion to Reopen the Record is DENIED.**
#### BAUERS v. WATKINS et al.

No. 22720.

District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.

July 19, 1945.

Carl M. Myers, of Akron, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Vernon Weygandt and Wm. D. Held, both of Akron, Ohio, for defendants.

JONES, District Judge.

Defendants have moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to make his complaint more definite and certain by alleging whether or not he is suing the defendants individually or as members of a partnership. The action is for treble damages under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq. In the caption of the complaint the defendants are designated as Roger W. Watkins and Henry C. Brown both doing business as W. & B. Motor Company. In paragraph 1 of the complaint plaintiff alleges that “the defendants, Roger W. Watkins and Henry C. Brown, are doing business as the W. & B. Motor Company at 304 West Market *Street,*in the *City*of Akron * * * and that said defendants are engaged in the business of selling motor vehicles at retail.” In paragraphs 4 and 5 he alleges that “the defendants” sold him a 1941 Cadillac automobile for $3344.00, which was $1296.87 in excess of the ceiling price of $2047.13.

*151The defendants say there is a question as to whether or not the action is'“against the individuals or against the W. & B. Motor Company, and also whether or not the latter is a partnership or some other form of joint enterprise or legal entity under which a business can be lawfully carried on in Ohio.”

Rule 9(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that: “It is not necessary to .aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or 'be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, except to the extent required to show the jurisdiction •of the court. When a party desires to •raise an issue as to the legal existence of .any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, he shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge.”

Under this rule plaintiff was not required to allege that the W. & B. Motor •Company was a partnership. The answer of Henry C. Brown denies that he was a partner at the time the complaint was ■founded. Plaintiff’s brief states that Mr. Brown has informed counsel for plaintiff that he formerly wa3 interested in the W. & B. Motor Company but had sold his interest before this cause of action arose.

Plaintiff’s brief also states that the certificate of title to the car was assigned by “W & B Motor Co. by Roger W. Watkins” and that the City Directory of Akron lists Henry C. Brown and Roger W. Watkins as the operators of the W. & B. Motor Company.

From the above facts it seems unlikely that any material clarification of the issues would result from requiring plaintiff to amend his complaint. Under Rule 20(a) judgment can be given “against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.”

Motion to make definite and certain demi ed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,219
<INVENTORY>                                      1,871
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,323
<PP&E>                                          18,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,720
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,683
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,746
<SALES>                                        135,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,408
<CGS>                                           89,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,348)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,185)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    759
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,944)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.42)




</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification 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 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), I, William D. Hibbetts, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

(1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (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.



|                      |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 3, 2006 |  | /s/ William D. Hibbetts                          
|                      |  | William D. Hibbetts                              
|                      |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 11.3
                       EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                       FULLY DILUTED COMPUTATION
        FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND 1995
           (IN MILLIONS EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

                                                    At September 30,
                                               -----------------------
                                                   1996         1995
                                               ----------   ----------
Basis for computation of fully diluted
  earnings per share:

  Earnings before extraordinary item,
   as reported                                 $     28.6 $     32.1
  Add interest charges on convertible debt            1.8        1.8
  Less provision for taxes                            (.7)       (.7)
                                               ----------  ----------
  Earnings before extraordinary item,
   as adjusted                                       29.7       33.2
  Extraordinary loss - debt retirement                7.5
                                               ----------  ----------

  Net earnings applicable to common stock      $     22.2 $     33.2
                                               ==========  ==========

Number of shares:

  Weighted average shares outstanding         93,629,449   92,220,755
  Conversion of convertible subordinated
    notes into common stock                    3,619,783    3,622,040
                                              ----------   ----------
  Total common and common equivalent
   shares assuming full dilution              97,249,232   95,842,795
                                              ==========   ==========

Fully diluted earnings per share:

  Earnings before cumulative effect of
   accounting change and extraordinary item   $      .31   $      .35
  Extraordinary loss - debt retirement              (.08)
                                              ----------   ----------
  Net earnings                                $      .23   $      .35
                                              ==========   ==========

This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item
601(b)(11).  However, under APB Opinion No. 15, calculation of fully
diluted earnings (loss) per share would exclude the conversion of
convertible securities which would have an antidilutive effect on
earnings (loss) per share for each period.
**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE****Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2007 (the "Pooling and****Servicing Agreement"), among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo****Bank, N.A., as General Master Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Maste r Servicer, National****Consumer Cooperative Bank, as Co-op Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National****Association, as Trustee, Paying Agent and Certificate Registrar and LNR Partners, Inc.,****as General Special Servicer****MSCI 2007-IQ13**I, Susan K. Chapman, a Vice President of LNR Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, on behalf of the Special Servicer and not in my individual capacity, hereby certify that: 1.I have reviewed the activities performed by the Special Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the period ending the end of the fiscal year 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. LNR PARTNERS, INC. ****By: /s/ Susan K. Chapman Susan K. Chapman  Vice President
Exhibit 99.1

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 ZiLOG, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), James M. Thorburn, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Perry Grace, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his and her knowledge, respectively, that:

	(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ James M. Thorburn_

Name: James M. Thorburn

Title:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 13, 2002   

_/s/ Perry J. Grace__

Name: Perry J. Grace

Title:   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date:  November 13, 2002 

 

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.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 30, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2278 Lower Tribunal No. F89-47305B

________________ 

### George Calvin Delancy,

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, Cristina Miranda, Judge. Ana M. Davide, P.A., and Ana M. Davide, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, SCALES and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1181 (Fla. 2001) (“[A] sentence is ‘illegal’ if it ‘imposes a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’” (quoting Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))); Taylor v. State, 573 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (“Pursuant to section 784.07, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), the attempted murder of a law enforcement official is a life felony, punishable as provided in section 775.0825 of the Florida Statutes (1987). Section 775.0825 exempts convictions for the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer from the sentencing guidelines and imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years.”); Newton v. State, 603 So. 2d 558, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (upholding a life sentence with a minimum mandatory twenty-five-year sentence for the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer).
|  | (i) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  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 periodspresented. |
|--|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      June 9, 2010 |
|-------------------------|
| By:                | /s/ JAIME RIVERA |
|                    | Jaime      Rivera |
|                    | Chief      Executive Officer |

----
#### Jones *v.*The State.

On the facts in evidence, a verdict for murder followed as a necessary-consequence, and there was no error in denying a new trial, although some minor errors and inaccuracies may have been committed in the course of the trial.

April 16, 1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Butt. Muscogee superior court. November term, 1893.

M. H. Blandford and J. M. McNeill, by brief, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and S. P. Gilbert, solicitor-general, by brief, *contra.*

Lumpkin, Justice.

How such cruelty as was disclosed by the record in this case is possible, can be accounted for only upon the doctrine of total depravity. The accused brutally and unmercifully beat to death his niece, a helpless girl to whom he owed, *in loco parentis,*every duty of kindness and protection. It is unnecessary to mar the pages of this report with the heart-sickening details of his atrocious conduct. It is probably time that he did not actually intend to cause the death of the girl, but there was-no other reasonable or natural consequence of his acts. He is, therefore, to the full extent, responsible in law for *74• -what he did, and is beyond doubt a murderer, whether the actual intention to kill existed or not. His motion for a new trial contains many grounds, a close examination of which will, perhaps, disclose the commission of ■some’minor errors and inaccuracies during the trial; but as the verdict for murder was the only one which could be legally found, they are immaterial and unimportant. There would be no wisdom nor justice in ordering another trial of a case which has already had a perfectly lawful and proper termination. The jury saw proper not to make a recommendation to mercy, and the accused has forfeited his life. We trust his awful fate will be a solemn warning to others who may be tempted to follow his unfortunate example.

*Judgment affirmed.*