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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the financial
statements of HEARx Ltd and is qualified in its entirety by references to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000821536
<NAME> HEARX LTD.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                       4,545,995
<SECURITIES>                                13,905,794
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,887,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (522,355)
<INVENTORY>                                    360,723
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,386,559
<PP&E>                                      12,540,381
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,380,439)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,394,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,453,491
<BONDS>                                        185,999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,000
<COMMON>                                     8,629,394
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,114,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,394,329
<SALES>                                     11,602,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,602,849
<CGS>                                        3,279,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,028,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,705,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,705,875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,736,057)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,441,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Michelle C. Hissam, Appellant, v Matthew P. Mancini, Respondent. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

Submitted March 7, 2011;

decided May 3, 2011

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed that part of Family Court’s order that dismissed appellant’s contempt application, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does *871not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.

Judge Pigott taking no part.
EXHIBIT 23.01
 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-93580) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-53803) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-81739) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-34460) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-57176) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-76750) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-87934) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(8)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-106953) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(9)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-108825) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(10)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3ASR No. 333-147963) of Martek Biosciences Corporation,(11)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-79222) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation Stock Option Plan, Martek Biosciences Corporation Directors Stock Option Plan and
Martek Biosciences Corporation 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan,(12)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-46949) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan,(13)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-27671) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan,(14)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84317) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan, as amended,(15)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-52298) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan, as amended,(16)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-74092) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation 2001 Stock Option Plan,(17)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-85856) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation 2002 Stock Incentive Plan,(18)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87016) pertaining to the OmegaTech, Inc. 1996 Stock
Option Plan and a Non Statutory Stock Option Agreement between OmegaTech, Inc. and Mark
Braman,(19)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-105555) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended,(20)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117671) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation 2004 Stock Incentive Plan and the Martek Biosciences Corporation 2003 New Employee
Stock Option Plan,(21)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-125802) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, and(22)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137633) pertaining to the Martek Biosciences
Corporation Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**





**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**





I,
      Lui
      Chi Keung, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Digital Media
      Corporation.





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects
      the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing
      and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
      report ("Evaluation Date"); and





c)
      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and;





5.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





a)
      all
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information (all of which do not apply); and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting, (all of which do not apply).




Date:
              November 4, 2005
            By:
            /s/ Lui
              Chi KeungLui
                Chi Keung
              Chief
                Financial Officer
exv10w44



 





EXHIBIT 10.44




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ESCO TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2004 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN




WHEREAS, ESCO Technologies Inc. (“Company”) adopted the ESCO Technologies Inc. 2004 Incentive
Compensation Plan (“Plan”); and



WHEREAS, the Company retained the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 15 thereof; and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in accordance with Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;



NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of October 3, 2007, the Plan is amended as follows:



1. The last sentence of Section 8(a) is deleted.



2. The second sentence in Section 10(b) is deleted and replaced with the following:



Any such dividend equivalents shall be paid to the participants awarded the Restricted Stock Award
at the time the shares to which the dividend equivalents apply are delivered to the participant.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Amendment was adopted on the 3rd day of October, 2007.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Benjamin HOLT, Jr., a.k.a. Rbholtjr, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-12618

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 28, 2009.

Raymond Benjamin Holt, Jr., .Miami, FL, pro se.

Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*804Before BIRCH, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William E. Folsom, appointed counsel for Raymond Benjamin Holt, Jr. in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Holt’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 120 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 120

   Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a National 
      Hurricane Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2006

  Mr. Vitter submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a National 
      Hurricane Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana.

Whereas the Creole Nature Trail All-American Road District Board of 
        Commissioners has begun to create and develop a National Hurricane 
        Museum and Science Center in the southwest Louisiana area;
Whereas protecting, preserving, and showcasing the intrinsic qualities that make 
        Louisiana a one-of-a-kind experience is the mission of the Creole Nature 
        Trail All-American Road;
Whereas the horrific experience and the devastating long-term effects of 
        Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will play a major role in the history of the 
        United States;
Whereas a science center of this caliber will educate and motivate young and old 
        in the fields of meteorology, environmental science, sociology, 
        conservation, economics, history, communications, and engineering;
Whereas it is only appropriate that the effects of hurricanes and the rebuilding 
        efforts be captured in a comprehensive center such as a National 
        Hurricane Museum and Science Center to interpret the effects of 
        hurricanes in and outside of Louisiana; and
Whereas it is critical that the history of past hurricanes be preserved so that 
        all people in the United States can learn from this history: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress supports and encourages the creation of a National 
Hurricane Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana.
                                 <all>
```
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 862

____________ JOHN CHRISTOPHER MARQUARD ,

Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee. [ January 24, 2018 ]

PER CURIAM.
We have for review John Christopher Marquard’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Marquard’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.
Const. Marquard’s motion s ought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on
remand in Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court stayed Marqua rd’s appeal pending the disposition of- 2

-

Hitchcock v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017) , cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017)

. After this Court decided Hitchcock , Marquard responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be disp ositive in this case. After reviewing Marquard’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Marquard is not entitled to relief. Marquard was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation
for death. Marquard v. State , 641 So. 2d 54 , 56 (Fla. 1994). Marquard’s sentence
of death became final in 1995. Marquard v. Florida , 513 U.S. 1132 (1995). Thus,
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Marquard’s sentence of death. See
Hit chcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Marquard’s
motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Marquard , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered.
LABA RGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitch cock
v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017) , is now- 3

-

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for St. Johns County, Howard Mason Maltz, Judge

- Case No. 551991CF002418XXAXMX James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Adriana Corso , and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Leslie T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee
#### BYERS v. OLANDER.

Civ. A. No. 6637.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Jan. 9, 1948.

*746Doty & Thornton, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

David S. Palkovitz, of McKeesport, Pa., for defendant.

GOURLEY, District Judge.

This is an action brought by H. C. Byers, plaintiff, against-Hallie Ward Olander, defendant, under the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended and extended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., and the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, Public Law No. 129, 80th Congress, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1881 et seq.

It is contended that the defendant and landlord of the housing accommodations received rental during the effective period of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 in excess of the maximum rent prescribed under the provisions of said Act. In addition to the claim for the overcharge in the rental, a demand is made for liquidated damages and reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. No request for jury trial was filed by the plaintiff.

The defendant has filed a motion for a more definite statement and bill of particulars, setting forth, inter alia, that the pleading is vague, general, indefinite and not susceptible to a definite responsive answer.

I believe that the complaint meets the requirements of Rule 8(e) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which Rule requires only that “a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct”.

The motion for a more specific statement or a bill of particulars is filed on the basis of Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(e) necessarily calls for construction that opposes pleading evidence, and the words “or to prepare for trial” pertain only to the composition, service and filing of an answer to a complaint.

No need exists for the citation of authorities for the reason that the law is settled that a motion for a more definite statement or bill of particulars should not be granted where the information desired can be gained by a request for admissions, and interrogatories or depositions.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in the amendment to Rule 12(e), which will become effective March 19, 1948, abolishes the motion for a bill of particulars. The motion for a more definite statement is the exact equivalent of the motion for a bill of particulars. When the Supreme Court of the United States provided for the abolishment of the motion for a bill of particulars it did at the same time intend to amend the rule with respect to a more definite statement so as *747to limit the cases where such a motion might he proposed.

I believe the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Rule 8(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the motion for a more definite statement or a bill of particulars is, therefore, refused. The defendant is directed to file a responsive pleading within twenty days from the date of the filing of the within order.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2567 

To suspend temporarily the duty on carbonaceous pastes for electrodes and 

similar pastes for furnace linings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on carbonaceous pastes 

for electrodes and similar pastes for furnace linings. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CARBONACEOUS PASTES FOR ELECTRODES 

4 AND SIMILAR PASTES FOR FURNACE LIN5 INGS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2567 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Carbonaceous pastes for electrodes and similar pastes for 

furnace linings (provided for 

in subheading 3801.30.00) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (https://www.niddk.nih.gov) is 

hiring a Physician Scientist for research focusing on Disorders of Gut Brain Interaction and 

Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders. 

Openings will be within the extramural Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition (DDDN) 

(https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/offices-divisions/division-digestive-diseases-nutrition) 

The mission of the division is to support research programs in the alimentary GI tract, hepatobiliary 

system, exocrine pancreas, obesity, and nutrition. In fiscal year 2022 the division made approximately 

1,429 awards totaling approximately $640 million. 

Responsibilities of the position include leading and managing a program of grants and cooperative 

agreements for preclinical and clinical research and clinical trials in disorders of gut brain interaction and 

gastrointestinal motility. In addition, the position includes collaborative activities such as planning 

workshops and initiatives and providing scientific expertise to multiple other programs in NIDDK and NIH.

Specific research areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

Irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, cyclic vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, 

fecal incontinence, gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, and visceral pain.

Applicants must have an M.D. or equivalent degree, subspecialty certification in gastroenterology, and 

relevant research experience. U.S. Citizenship is required.

To Apply: 

In the near future listed global announcements for physicians will be open Monday, October 30th and 

links will be available to USAJobs. 

For more information on the position, contact: Dr. Stephen James: jamess@extra.niddk.nih.gov OR

Dr. David Saslowsky: David.Saslowsky@nih.gov. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), NIH, and NIDDK are equal opportunity 

employers committed to equity, diversity, and inclusion.

If you are not currently looking for a new position, please circulate this announcement to individuals who 

might be interested.