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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SECHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) JASON
INCORPORATED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT FOR
THE TWELVE MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 27, 1996.  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000813471
<NAME> JASON INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1996
<CASH>                                            2978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    61483
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      37839
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                140000
<PP&E>                                          158057
<DEPRECIATION>                                   66624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  323126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            73963
<BONDS>                                         134467<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         34687
<OTHER-SE>                                       60577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    323126
<SALES>                                         443406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                443406
<CGS>                                           357552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   357552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14534
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5668
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8866
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8866
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Company presents receivables on a net basis in compliance with Article 10
Regulation S-X.
<F2>Includes all non-current portion of debt obligations.
<F3>Not Reported.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 0001145549-04-001326) of GigaMedia Limited of our report dated May 26, 2005, except as to the change in presentation basis for the discontinued operation as described in Note 1, which is as ofDecember 9, 2005 relating to the financial statements as of December 31, 2003 and 2004 and for the years then ended, which appears in this Form 20-F/A. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading of “Principal Accountant Feesand Services” and “Controls and Procedures” in such Registration Statement. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

Taipei, Taiwan 

December 8, 2006
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Marc T. Ray, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc.;

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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and

     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) 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 officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons 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; 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.

| Dated: June 24, 2009 | /s/Marc T. Ray                                             |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |                                                            |
|                 | Marc T. Ray                                                |
|                 | Vice President Finance,            Chief Financial Officer |

24

----
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries



|                                              |  |                       |  |                              
|--------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary*                                   |  | Year of Incorporation |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Hoshin GigaMedia Center, Inc.                 |  | 1998                  |  | Taiwan                       
|GigaMedia Finance International Limited       |  | 2000                  |  | Cayman Islands               
|GigaMedia International Holdings Limited      |  | 2004                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|Cambridge Entertainment Software Limited      |  | 2004                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|FunTown World Limited                         |  | 2005                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|GigaMedia Asia Limited                        |  | 2005                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|FunTown Hong Kong Limited                     |  | 1999                  |  | Hong Kong                    
|GigaMedia China Limited                       |  | 2005                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|Cambridge Interactive Development Corporation |  | 1997                  |  | U.S.A.                       
|Internet Media Licensing Limited              |  | 2005                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|GigaMedia Europe Limited S.à.r.l.             |  | 2010                  |  | Luxembourg                   
|GigaMedia Asia Pacific Limited                |  | 2006                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|GigaMedia Online Entertainment Corp.          |  | 2009                  |  | Cayman Islands               
|GigaMedia (HK) Limited                        |  | 2004                  |  | Hong Kong                    



|* | Includes significant subsidiaries of GigaMedia Limited only.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 21.1


                                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

             NAME/LOCATION                                    JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
             -------------                                    -----------------------------
<S>                                                           <C>

DMC TELECOM U.K. LTD., Lanarkshire, Scotland                   State of Delaware, USA


DMC TELECOM CANADA, INC., Toronto, Canada                      Toronto, Canada


DMC DE MEXICO, SA. DE C.V., Mexico D.F., Mexico                Mexico City, Mexico


DMC DO BRASIL LTDA., Campinas, Brazil                          Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


DMC TELECOM PHILIPPINES, INC., Makati City, Philippines        Metro Manila, Philippines


DIGITAL MICROWAVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , New Delhi, India     New Delhi, India


DIGITAL MICROWAVE NW, INC., Seattle, Washington USA            State of Washington, USA


MAS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Wellington, New Zealand                Wellington, New Zealand


DIGITAL MICROWAVE ASIA PACIFIC (S) PTE. LTD., Singapore        Republic of Singapore


DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORPORATION (PTY.) LIMITED, South Pretoria   Republic of South Africa

</TABLE>

PAGE 28
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00431

- CR

Raul Resendez Herrera

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1322964D )

April 14, 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

After reviewing t he State’s motion for rehearing, we grant the motion. We

withdraw our February 18, 2016 opinion and judgment and substitute the

following.

This court has con sidered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed

, and we lift the stay previously ordered by this court on

March 11, 2016

.

SECOND DIS TRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walker
COURT OF APPEALS FOIl THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Angelina Gailey Individually and as Executrix of Estate of Patrick L.

Gailey, Dan Patrick Gailey, and Patrick L. Gailey v. Pasqual Gutierrez

Appellate case number: 01-12-00490-CV

Trial court case number: 0904324

Trial court: 61 st District Court of Harris County

The district clerk has filed a special clerk’s record on jurisdiction. We conclude that the

Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

The filing fee has been paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5.

The district clerk is ordered to file in this Court, within 30 days of the date of this order,

(1) the clerk’s record in accordance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5 or (2) notice that

appellant has neither paid, nor made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s

record. See TEX. R. ApP. P. 34.5 (governing contents of clerk’s record), 35.1 (listing deadlines to

file appellate record), 35.3 (defining responsibility to file record).

The court reporter is ordered to file in this Court, within 30 days of the date of this order,

(1) the reporter’s record in accordance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6 or (2) notice that

no record was taken or requested, or that appellant has neither paid, nor made arrangements to

pay, the fee for preparing the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APp. P. 34.6 (governing contents of

reporter’s record), 35.1 (listing deadlines to file appellate record), 35.3 (defining responsibility to

file record).

All currently pending motions are dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/Jane Bland

[] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court

Date: December 18, 2012
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
              SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DoMark International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Thomas Kidd, Chief Executive 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

                                           DoMark International, Inc.
                                                  Registrant

Date: January 20, 2009                     By: /s/ R. Thomas Kidd
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               R. Thomas Kidd
                                               Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principle Executive Officer,
                                               Principle Financial Officer)
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 14 Filed 03/03/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 14 Filed 03/03/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 14 Filed 03/03/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 30
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 14 Filed 03/03/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 31
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 14 Filed 03/03/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 32
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 14 Filed 03/03/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 33
Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 14 Filed 03/03/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSE CALDERON, :

Civil Action No. 10-6621 (JLL)

Petitioner, :

v. : ORDER TO ANSWER

ERIC HOLDER, et al., :

Respondents. :

Petitioner having filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241;

IT IS on this 9 day of May, 2011, th

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of

the Petition, this Order, and all other documents docketed in

this matter upon Respondents by certified mail, return receipt

requested, with all costs of service advanced by the United

States; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward,

electronically or by regular mail, a copy of the Petition, this

Order, and all other documents docketed in this matter to the

Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorney’s Office, 970 Broad

Street, Room 700, Newark, NJ 07102; and it is further

ORDERED that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, applicable to § 2241 cases through

Case 2:10-cv-06621-JLL Document 4 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 28
Rule 1(b), this Court has examined the Petition and determined

that dismissal prior to submission of an answer and the record is

not warranted; and it is further

ORDERED that, within 30 days after the date of entry of this

Order, Respondents shall electronically file a full and complete

answer to said Petition, which responds to the factual and legal

allegations of the Petition paragraph by paragraph; and it is

further

ORDERED that the answer shall state the statutory authority

for Petitioner’s detention, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243; and it is

further

ORDERED that Respondents shall raise by way of the answer

any appropriate defenses which Respondents wish to have the Court

consider, including, but not limited to, exhaustion of

administrative remedies, and also including, with respect to the

asserted defenses, relevant legal arguments with citations to

appropriate legal authority; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondents shall electronically file with the

answer certified copies of the administrative record and all

other documents relevant to Petitioner’s claims; and it is

further

ORDERED that each exhibit to the Answer must be attached

individually and must be individually identified by name in the

electronic filing entry, for example, “Exhibit #1 Transcript of

2

Case 2:10-cv-06621-JLL Document 4 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 29
(type of proceeding) held on XX/XX/XXXX” or “Exhibit #2 Opinion

entered on XX/XX/XXXX by Judge XXXX”; and it is further

ORDERED that Petitioner may file and serve a reply in

support of the Petition within 30 days after the answer is filed;

and it is further

ORDERED that, within 7 days after any change in Petitioner’s

custody status, be it release or otherwise, Respondents shall

electronically file a written notice of the same with the Clerk

of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve this Order

on Petitioner by regular mail.

/s/ Jose L. Linares 

Jose L. Linares

United States District Judge

3

Case 2:10-cv-06621-JLL Document 4 Filed 05/09/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 30
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STEPHON CLARK,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00216-CR

Appeal from the

367th Judicial District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC# F-2010-0790-E)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0589 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TIMOTHY ERIC RITESMAN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 21 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 15 2024

05/15/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0589
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SPECTRUM
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES (DEBTORS IN POSSESSION)
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,132
<SECURITIES>                                     2,176
<RECEIVABLES>                                      374
<ALLOWANCES>                                        86
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,835
<PP&E>                                             542
<DEPRECIATION>                                     334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,757
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,043
<SALES>                                            388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,873
<CGS>                                              161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,911)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,911)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     531
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (800)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,180)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.04)
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:11-mj-05647-KMW   Document 11   Filed 03/10/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 25

Case 1:11-mj-05647-KMW   Document 11   Filed 03/10/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 26
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 17, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60474

Summary Calendar

TAJDIN SADRU PITALYA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 141 918

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tajdin Sadru Pitalya, a native and citizen of India,

petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)

decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We

will uphold findings that an alien is not eligible for

withholding of removal if the findings are supported by

substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th

Cir. 2002). Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal of

the BIA’s decision is improper unless the alien shows that the
No. 05-60474

-2-

evidence compels it. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th

Cir. 2006). 

The evidence does not compel a conclusion that Pitalya

suffered past persecution or that it is more likely than not that

he will suffer persecution or torture if he is returned to India. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)(i), (ii); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d

299, 304 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132,

138 (5th Cir. 2004). Pitalya’s petition for review is therefore

DENIED.