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


<ARTICLE>    5

<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                            59,686
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  59,728
<PP&E>                                            13,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                    13,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    59,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             20,477
<BONDS>                                                0
<COMMON>                                           1,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (116,010)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      59,728
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     685
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   6,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (5,466)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (5,466)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.0

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Annual Report of Andrea Electronics Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
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 and 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                            
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ DOUGLAS J. ANDREA                      
|                     |  | Douglas J. Andrea                          
|                     |  | Chairman of the Board, President, Chief    
|                     |  | Executive Officer and Corporate Secretary  
|                     | 
|                     |  | /s/ CORISA L. GUIFFRE                      
|                     |  | Corisa L. Guiffre                          
|                     |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
|                     |  | Assistant Corporate Secretary
# Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD)

The NIMH-funded Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) is a long-term outpatient study designed to find out which treatments, or combinations of treatments, are most effective for treating episodes of depression and mania and for preventing recurrent episodes in people with bipolar disorder. This page provides comprehensive information about the study.

### Questions and Answers

                  - Questions and Answers About the STEP-BD Depression Psychosocial Treatment Trial
                  - Questions and Answers about the STEP-BD Acute Depression Trial
                  - General Background Questions and Answers about the NIMH STEP-BD Acute Depression Medication Trial

### News about the STEP-BD Study

                  - Press Release (April 2, 2008): Intensive Psychotherapy More Effective Than Brief Therapy for Treating Bipolar Depression
                  - Press Release (March 28, 2007): Study Sheds Light on Medication Treatment Options for Bipolar Disorder
                  - Science Update (Feb. 1, 2006): Early Findings from Largest NIMH-Funded Research Program on Bipolar Disorder Begin to Build Evidence-Base on Best Treatment Options

### Related Information

                  - NIMH Bipolar Disorder Page
                  - Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) from ClinicalTrials.gov **
                  - Limited Access Dataset from STEP-BD
Exhibit 15.1
 
 July 29, 2011
 
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 100 F Street, N.E.
 Washington, DC 20549
 
 Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-170717, No. 333-160994, No. 333-153151, No. 333-142202, No. 333-142199, No. 333-127223, No. 333-51418, No. 333-49392, No. 333-47667, No. 333-47665, No. 333-47194, No. 033-65932, No. 033-65930, No. 033-52387 and No. 033-28534).
 
 Commissioners:
 
 We are aware that our reports dated July 29, 2011 on our review of interim financial information of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (the “Company”) and AllianceBernstein L.P. for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 and included in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 are incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements referred to above.
 
 Very truly yours,
   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPNew York, New York
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          49,601
<SECURITIES>                                     3,962
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,655
<INVENTORY>                                    217,482
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               456,023
<PP&E>                                         201,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,157,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,578
<BONDS>                                        295,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,930
<OTHER-SE>                                     470,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,157,259
<SALES>                                        741,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               747,684
<CGS>                                          554,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  702,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,394
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,659
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,399
<DISCONTINUED>                                  55,421
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (6,730)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   101,090
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.14
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 January 4, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-13701

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 

06-00134-CV-T-30MSS

03-BK-23102-ALP

IN RE: AMERICAN EQUITY CORPORATION OF PINELLAS,

Debtor.

____________________________________________________

ESTHER GLAUSER,

PAUL C. ASTOR, 

Executor of the Estate of Julius Glauser,

JULIUS GLAUSER, IRA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

V. JOHN BROOK, 

Trustee,

Defendant-Appellee.
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

 (January 4, 2007) 

Before BLACK, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Esther Glauser, Paul C. Astor, Executor of the estate of Julius

Glauser, and the Julius Glauser IRA (collectively, “the Glausers”) seek reversal of

the district court’s affirmance of an order of the bankruptcy court approving a

compromise in two adversarial proceedings initiated by the Chapter 7 Trustee of

the Estate of American Equity Corporation of Pinellas (“the Debtor”) against

Ronald Clampitt, Gina Clampitt, and others. The compromise was made between

the Trustee, Ronald Clampitt (who is the sole shareholder of the Debtor) and Gina

Clampitt (Ronald Clampitt’s wife). The Glausers are creditors of the Debtor.

Having thoroughly reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, we hold

that the district court erred in affirming the bankruptcy court because the

bankruptcy court abused its discretion in approving the compromise. The record

is not sufficiently developed to support a finding that the compromise is in the best

interest of the estate. 
Appellee's motion for damages and costs is DENIED. 1

3

Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order affirming the order of the

bankruptcy court. We instruct the district court to vacate the order of the

bankruptcy court and to remand to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

REVERSED.1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00138

- CV

SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM , an Agency of the City of San Antonio,

Appellant

v.

MATIRAAN, LTD., and Marylyn House,

Appellees

From the 131st Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 08486

Honorable Laura Salinas

, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On July 5, 2022

, appellant filed an unopposed motion requesting an extension of time to

file appellant’s reply brief. Appell ant ’s motion is GRANTED. Appell ant ’s reply brief is due no

later than July 27 , 202 2

.

I t is so ORDERED on this 8th day of July, 2022

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Document

Exhibit 10.3

May 10, 2022






Michael Berger                                                                                                           
Chief Commercial Officer
Air Transport Services Group
145 Hunter Drive
Wilmington, OH  45177


Dear Mike:                      


As we discussed the company is willing to enter into a supplement compensation structure with you that is in addition to your current employment compensation arrangement, that provides for additional compensation for meeting succession and retention goals.


The incentive structure will compensate you $250,000 for meeting succession planning goals during 2022 through May 15, 2023, specifically to have a viable succession candidate for your position in place by the end of that period.


Additionally, the company will further compensate you $250,000 for staying with the company through April 15, 2024, during which time a primary goal will be the preparing your successor to assume your role.


The company agrees that the voluntary termination of your employment from the company on or after April 15, 2024 will be considered and treated as a “Retirement” for purposes of the Air Transport Services Group, Inc. 2015 Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, as such term is defined therein.


Please advice agreement or advise any questions.


/s/ Richard F. Corrado
_______________________________
Richard F. Corrado
President & CEO
Air Transport Services Group


Agreed:


/s/ Michael L. Berger
______________________________________
Michael L. Berger
Chief Commercial Officer
1995 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-2-1995

In Re: Keith Zettlemoyer

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-9000

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Keith Zettlemoyer" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 117.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/117
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 No. 95-9000 

 

 IN RE: KEITH ZETTLEMOYER 

 ALDONA DeVETSCO; THOMAS SCHMIDT; 

 and KEITH ZETTLEMOYER, 

 Petitioners/Appellants

v. 

 MARTIN HORN, Commissioner, Pennsylvania 

 Department of Corrections; and JOSEPH P. 

 MAZURKIEWICZ, Superintendent of the State 

 Correctional Institution at Rockview 

 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 For the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. No. 95-cv-00660) 

 

 

 Argued May 1, 1995 

 Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, 

 GREENBERG and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

 

 ORDER AMENDING OPINION OF THE COURT

 It is ordered that Footnote 2 in the above opinion, 

filed on May 1, 1995, is amended by adding thereto the following: 

 Chief Judge Sloviter notes: I dissented from this 

court's affirmance of the dismissal of the previous 

petition for habeas corpus because, inter alia, I would 

have required the district court to hold an evidentiary 

hearing on Mr. Zettlemoyer's claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel at sentencing. I took the 

position that as a result of the "plainly 

unenthusiastic case made on behalf of Mr. Zettlemoyer's 

life," we had no evidence from any "clergyman, former 

employer, teacher, neighbor, or friend who was willing 

to come forward to show that despite his crime, 

Zettlemoyer's life is still worth preserving." 923 

F.2d at 315. That issue is no longer before us but I 

feel compelled to add that after reading Mr. 

Zettlemoyer's testimony given in the district court on 

April 29, 1995 in the proceeding before us and the 

letter of March 28, 1995 that he wrote to counsel for 

the State Department of Corrections, I retain my belief 

that in other counsel's hands, such as those who have 

sought to pursue this petition for habeas corpus, the 

sentence may very well have been different. 

 By the Court, 

 /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter 

 Chief Judge 

Dated: May 2, 1995
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited Partnership  II-D  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 14th day of November, 2003.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-D
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-D and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-D and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[980 NE2d 523, 956 NYS2d 474]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Vincent Torres, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Vincent Torres, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

(Appeal No. 2.)

Decided November 20, 2012

*891APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney,*Syracuse *(Victoria M. White*of counsel), for appellant in the first and second above-entitled actions.

*J. Scott Porter,*Seneca Falls, for respondent in the first and second above-entitled actions.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant adequately preserved the argument that the exclusion of his wife from the courtroom violated his right to a public trial *(see People v Alvarez,*20 NY3d 75, 81 [2012]; *see also People v Caban,*14 NY3d 369, 373 [2010]). The closure of the courtroom during jury selection was not trivial *(see People v Martin,*16 NY3d 607, 613 [2011]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), orders affirmed in a memorandum.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2374

CHARLENE JANSON , Plaintiff − Appell ee ,

v. REITHOFFER SHOWS, INC

. , Defendant

– Appell ant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore

. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. ( 1:19−cv−00079−DLB )

Submitted : October 5, 2022 Decided: June 1, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: David A. Skomba, Miranda D. Russell, FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael J. Winkelman, MCCARTHY, WINKELMAN, MESTER, OFFUTT, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for A ppellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2374 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Reithoffer Shows, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law

. The jury found that Reithoffer’s negligence proximately caused Charlene Janson’s injury. And although the jury also found Janson was contributorily negligent, it awarded her damages, finding that Reithoffer had the last clear
chance to avoid her injury bu t failed to do so. Before the case was submitted to the jury, Reithoffer argued that there was insufficient evidence to submit the questions whether Reithoffer’s negligence proximately caused Janson’s injury and whether Reithoffer had the
last clear chanc e to avoid the injury. After the district court entered judgment, Reithoffer
renewed its motion on last

- clear

- chance grounds. The district court denied those motions

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, for the

reaso ns identified in the district court ’s decision , see Janson v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc. , No.
DLB

- 19

- 79, 2021 WL 52 8 0894 (D. Md. Nov. 12, 2021), we affirm. And we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2374 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
----

|                                    | /s/      Herbert M. Stein                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:  January      15, 2010 |                                                                                                                          |   |
|                                    | Herbert      M. Stein                                                                                                         |
|                                    | Chief      Executive Officer and President (principal executive    officer)                                                   |
|                                    |                                                                                                                          |   |
|                                    | /s/      Paul J. Murphy                                                                                                       |
| Dated:  January      15, 2010 |                                                                                                                          |   |
|                                    | Paul      J. Murphy                                                                                                           |
|                                    | Chief      Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance (principal financial      officer and principal accountingofficer) |

----
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
      Annual Report of Atlas Mining Company on Form 10-KSB for the period
      ending  December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange  Commission  on the
      date  hereof,  I, William
      Jacobson,  Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.
      The Report 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.





Date:  April
      13,
      2007                                                                           /S/
      William Jacobson


William
      Jacobson,


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Bausch & Lomb Contact Lens Solution Product Liability Litigation. Plaintiffs in the New York Coordinated Proceeding, Appellants, v Bausch & Lomb, Respondent.

Submitted March 26, 2012;

decided May 8, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.