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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS FOR YEAR 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           3,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                       217
<INVENTORY>                                      3,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,793
<PP&E>                                         384,837
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 480,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,180
<BONDS>                                        172,671
<COMMON>                                           583
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   480,648
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               657,364
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  459,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,444)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       374
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,818)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,818)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ebony Wilkerson, Respondent, v 134 Kitty’s Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[854 NYS2d 169]

*719The cause of action seeking to recover damages for assault is asserted against all the defendants. Since the underlying events occurred on September 28, 2002 and the action was not commenced by filing until July 5, 2005, the assault cause of action is untimely under the applicable one-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 215 [3]), and the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against them.

However, as to the negligence cause of action including, inter alia, the issue of piercing the corporate veil as to the defendant Efren Rivera, the appellants failed to establish their prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment *(see Giuffrida v Citibank Corp.,*100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003]; *Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135, 141 [1993]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Allstate Ins. Co. v Persampire,*45 AD3d 706 [2007]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Otsego County based upon “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice” (CPLR 510 [3]). The appellants failed to submit sufficient evidence of the criteria necessary to demonstrate entitlement to that relief *(see O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp.,*207 AD2d 169, 172-173 [1995]; *Frankel v Stavsky,*40 AD3d 918, 919 [2007]; *Shindler v Warf,*24 AD3d 429, 430 [2005]). That branch of the appellants’ motion which was to change the venue of the action as a matter of right was properly denied, as it was untimely *(see*CPLR 511 [b]; *Castillo v Metropolitan Laundry Mach. Co.,*299 AD2d 247 [2002]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
@article{1214186,
  author = {Denis E. Bergeron and Richard Essex and Svetlana Nour and Gordon A. Shaw and R. Michael Verkouteren and Ryan P. Fitzgerald},
  title = {Gravimetric deposition of microliter drops with radiometric confirmation},
  year = {2023},
  number = {201},
  month = {2023-09-09 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Applied Radiation and Isotopes},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936817},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2023.111025},
  language = {en},
}
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2018

No. 04-17-00308-CR

Gerald WASHINGTON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR1095

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on November 1, 2017. The appellant 

previously has been granted two extensions of time to file his brief, extending the deadline to 

January 2, 2018. On January 5, 2018, appellant filed a motion requesting a third extension of 

time to file his brief until February 1, 2018, for a total extension of ninety days. The motion is 

GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE APPELLANT 

WILL BE GRANTED. The Appellant’s brief must be filed by February 1, 2018, or this appeal 

will be abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing, and the trial court will be asked to 

consider whether sanctions are appropriate. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# covid_table61_c75_naics
CURTIS MCCLENDON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 3815

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed July 8, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County

. Jonathan E. Sjostrom , Judge

. Curtis McClendon, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Wes Paxson, III, Assistant Attorney Genera l, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the summary denial of a motion for postconviction

relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The State

concedes that grounds one, two and five were improperly d enied as facially

insufficient because the trial court never granted leave to amend. Thus, w e reverseand remand for the trial court to grant the appellant leave to amend grounds one,

two and five pursuant to Spera v. State , 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007) (ho lding that a

trial court must allow the defendant at least one opportunity to amend facially

insufficient claims )

. We otherwise affirm the order on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., and MONACO, TOBY S., ASS OCIATE JUDGE, CONCUR.

2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 22, 2019

Order 

Clerk

February 22, 2019

148981(40)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 148981

v COA: 319642

Muskegon CC: 12-062665-FH

PAUL J. BETTS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of 

Michigan to extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus 

brief submitted on February 15, 2019, is accepted for filing.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS' BONUS PLAN

A fiscal  2000  Executive  Officers'  Incentive  Bonus plan is  established  for
distribution after the end of fiscal 2000. Each Vice President and the President
(the  "Executive  Officers")  will receive a maximum bonus of 60% of base salary
for fiscal 2000 if Consolidated Operating Profit (income before interest, taxes,
depreciation,  amortization,  and payment of any bonuses) is at least $9,232,000
greater than the level achieved in fiscal 1999, as follows:

Each  Executive  Officer  will  receive a bonus of 20% of base salary for fiscal
2000  if  Consolidated  Operating  Profit  is at  least  equal  to  $31,889,000.
Thereafter, .72% of base salary will be paid as bonus for each 1% improvement in
Consolidated Operating Profit up to a level of $40,804,000.  For each additional
1%  improvement  in  Consolidated   Operating  Profit  beyond  $40,804,000,   an
additional 1.56% of base salary will be paid, up to a maximum incentive bonus of
60% of base salary.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Executive Officers shall not receive any bonus if
their division does not attain  Operating  Profit equal to more than 80% of plan
for that  division.  If  Divisional  Operating  Profit  is more  than 80% of the
division plan but not more than 90%, Executive Officers shall receive 50% of the
bonus  otherwise  payable to them.  In between  80% and 90%,  the bonus shall be
prorated.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11050

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT ERVIN HARNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CR-131-T

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Ervin Harner appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

bank robbery and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2 and 2113(a). Harner argues that the district court clearly

erred in increasing his offense level by seven points for the

discharge of a firearm during the commission of the offense under

§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(A) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, in denying a

reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1, and in
No. 96-11050

- 2 -

calculating his criminal history. Harner waived his right to 

appeal these aspects of his sentence in the plea agreement, and

he has not shown that the waiver-of-appeal provision was not

knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d

566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992). Because Harner waived his right to

appeal these issues, his appeal is DISMISSED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32(c)

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





I,



(1)
The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.










|/s/ Hugh T. McDonaldHugh T. McDonald
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 9, 2004
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 22.1
 
                            SUBSIDIARIES OF WESTCORP
 
Western Financial Bank, F.S.B., a Federal Savings Bank
WFS Financial Inc, a California corporation
WFS Financial Auto Loans, Inc., a California corporation
WFS Financial Auto Loans 2, Inc., a California corporation
WFS Investments, Inc., a California corporation
Western Consumer Services, Inc., a California corporation
Western Financial Insurance Agency, Inc., a California corporation
Western Financial Investments, Inc., a California corporation
Western Reconveyance Company, Inc., a California corporation
Westhrift Life Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation
Westran Services Corp., a California corporation
Westcorp Investments, Inc., a California corporation
The Hammond Company, The Mortgage Bankers, a California corporation
 
                                      F-37
**31.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

           I, Lisa Norman, certify that:

     1)   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of American Home Alliance Corporation.

     2)   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 annual report.

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

By:  /s/ Lisa Norman****
# table197_q20_state
# Result 21.3
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Fugett v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1934.] 

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 

an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested 

to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 

65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 

other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 

made before the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-1934 

FUGETT, APPELLANT, v. TURNER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 

it may be cited as Fugett v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1934.] 

Habeas corpus—R.C. 2725.04(D)—Failure to attach copies of commitment 

orders—Res judicata bars claim—Judgment affirmed and writ denied.

(No. 2013-1350—Submitted April 30, 2014—Decided May 14, 2014.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-13-30. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Donald Lee Fugett appeals the Third District Court of Appeals’ 

dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. For the following reasons, the court of 

appeals properly dismissed Fugett’s petition, and we affirm. 

{¶ 2} The court of appeals correctly found that Fugett failed to attach all 

required copies of his commitment orders and thus failed to comply with R.C. 

2725.04(D). This omission renders the petition fatally defective and subject to 

dismissal. Day v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 566, 2008-Ohio-82, 880 N.E.2d 919, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

¶ 4, citing Tisdale v. Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 

1191, ¶ 6. 

{¶ 3} The court of appeals also correctly found that Fugett had filed a 

previous action for a writ of habeas corpus, Fugett v. Jeffreys, 108 Ohio St.3d 

1506, 2006-Ohio-1329, 844 N.E.2d 852, and any valid claim could have been 

raised in that case. Therefore, the current case is barred by the doctrine of res 

judicata. Nickelson v. Knab, 131 Ohio St.3d 199, 2012-Ohio-579, 963 N.E.2d 

154, ¶ 1, citing Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 

378, ¶ 2. 

{¶ 4} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 

appeals. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

____________________ 

Donald Lee Fugett, pro se. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

_________________________
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1

STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles D. Kissner, certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the registrant); and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this 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
report.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                         |     |                                      |  | 
|------------------------ | --- | ------------------------------------ |  | 
|                         |     |                                     
|Date: September 20, 2004 | By: | /s/ Charles D. Kissner               | 
|                         |     | Charles D. Kissner                   | 
|                         |     | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 
|
Cite as 2016 Ark. 237



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-15-958

KENNY HALFACRE APPELLANT
V. WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE Opinion DeliveredJune 2, 2016 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [LINCOLN COUNTY, NO. 40CV-16- 41] HONORABLE JODIE RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE
SPECIAL MASTER APPOINTED.

PER CURIAM On February 18, 2016, this court issued a per curiam order remanding the record to the circuit court with directions to submit, within ten days, all relevant pleadings properly file marked and certified by the circuit clerk in Halfacre v. Kelley , No. CV-15-958 (Ark. filed Nov. 20, 2015). Halfacre v. Kelley , 2016 Ark. 71. These pleadings included Kenny Halfacre’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis, the affidavit submitted by Halfacre in support of his petition, the order denying the petition, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On April 14, 2016, this court ordered Ms. Cindy Glover, Circuit Clerk of Lincoln County, to appear before this court and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with this court’s order of February 18, 2016. Halfacre v. Kelley , 2016 Ark. 171. On May 5, 2016, Ms. Glover appeared before this court and entered a plea of not guilty. At that time, the court advised Ms. Glover that this court would appoint a special master to make findings of fact concerning this matter.Cite as 2016 Ark. 237

We hereby appoint the Honorable John Mauzy Pittman as special master to conduct a hearing, to make findings of fact, and to file his findings with this court’s clerk. On receipt of the special master’s findings, we will render a decision in this matter. It is so ordered.

2
# table143_q15.3_state
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

 : CRIMINAL 10cr851-7 

v. :

 : ORDER

THOMAS LEONARDIS 

:

The financial inability of the defendant Thomas Leonardis to

retain counsel having been established by the Court, and the

defendant not having waived the appointment of counsel, and

The court having heard the U.S. Attorney(s) concerns about

the qualifications of such appointment; and

for good cause shown; 

It is on this 4th day of October, 2001, 

O R D E R E D that Michael Pedicini, Esq is hereby ordered

to remain as appointed counsel to represent defendant Leonardis

in this case until further order of the Court; and

Further ORDERED that if defendant does in fact have assets

which are discovered after trial, defendant will be required to

reimburse the government for the cost of counsel.

 S/DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH 

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH

United States District Judge

cc: United States Attorney

Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 136 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 756
***Exhibit 31.2******CERTIFICATIONS***     I, Jason West, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Mid-America Bancshares, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.May 8, 2007/s/ Jason West
Case 2:10-mj-07196-CLW   Document 38   Filed 09/20/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 72

Case 2:10-mj-07196-CLW   Document 38   Filed 09/20/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 73