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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         442,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,791,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                    97,596
<INVENTORY>                                  7,106,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,407,126
<PP&E>                                      15,670,417
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,390,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,176,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,718,581
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,338
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,390,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,176,960
<SALES>                                     22,134,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,483,804
<CGS>                                       16,041,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,831,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,737,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                27,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,961,268
<INCOME-TAX>                                   588,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,372,888
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,372,888
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.3

                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the "Company") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned, as Senior Vice President, Finance of the Company, hereby
certifies that:

          (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated as of this 8th day of August 2006.


                                    /s/ Margaret E. Wilson
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Margaret E. Wilson
                                    Senior Vice President, Finance
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Richard Paul CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James LONG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-16233.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Richard Paul Chapman, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.. Thus, Chapman’s request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Paul Chapman, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from *775the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations in connection with a civil action brought against him in state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s jurisdictional dismissal based on the *Rooker-Feldmm*doctrine. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine bars Chapman’s civil rights action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal from a judicial decision of a state court,” and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that prior state court decision. *Id.*at 1158.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chapman’s motion for reconsideration because Chapman failed to demonstrate grounds warranting relief from the judgment. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                           10003
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 18014
<PP&E>                                          122162
<DEPRECIATION>                                   20646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  182936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         35000
<OTHER-SE>                                        1794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    182936
<SALES>                                         127995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                133005
<CGS>                                           104108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   104108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2323
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                988
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       988
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed September 18, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2295

Lower Tribunal No. 19-22194

________________

Emmanuel Pacin,

Appellant,

vs.

Nicole Granja,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Marcia Del Rey, Judge.

Rhonda F. Goodman, P.A., and Rhonda F. Goodman, for appellant.

Abramowitz and Associates, and Jordan B. Abramowitz, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES, and GOODEN, JJ. 

SCALES, J.
2

Appellant Emmanuel Pacin (Father) seeks appellate review of a 

November 22, 2023 order dismissing Father’s May 1, 2023 amended 

supplemental petition for modification of a final judgment of parental 

responsibility, timesharing, and child support (amended supplemental 

petition).

Appellee Nicole Granja (Mother) moved to dismiss Father’s amended 

supplemental petition, asserting that Father had failed to allege sufficient 

facts entitling Father to relief and that Father had “unclean hands” barring 

Father’s attempt to modify his obligations.

After conducting an October 9, 2023 hearing on Mother’s dismissal 

motion, the trial court entered the challenged order that dismissed Father’s 

amended supplemental petition without prejudice to file a second amended 

supplemental petition within twenty days of the order. While the trial court 

addressed the bases upon which Mother’s dismissal motion was premised, 

the record is clear that the trial court contemplated Father filing an amended 

pleading rather than a new case. The challenged order, therefore, 

constitutes a non-final, non-appealable order. Obermark v. Obermark, 48. 

Fla. L. Weekly D 1891, 2023 WL 6165646, at *1 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 22, 

2023).
3

Without expressing any opinion as to whether the trial court erred in 

entering the challenged order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 21

                                   SUBSIDIARIES AND JOINT VENTURE OF THE COMPANY


As of March 31,  2004,  the Company  owned a majority  to 100% of the  following
securities of the following subsidiaries and Joint Venture:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                           Charter/Joint Venture
                                                              Percentage of Voting
               Subsidiary and Joint Venture                     Securities Owned           Place           Date
               ----------------------------                     ----------------           -----           ----
<S>                       <C>                                         <C>                             <C>   <C>
Homespan Realty Co., Inc. ("Homespan")                                100.0            Wisconsin      02/12/1959
Mineral San Sebastian, S.A. de C.V.  ("Misanse")                       52.0            El Salvador    05/08/1960
Ecomm Group Inc. ("Ecomm")                                            100.0            Wisconsin      06/24/1974
San Luis Estates, Inc. ("SLE")                                        100.0            Colorado       11/09/1970
San Sebastian Gold Mines, Inc. ("Sanseb")                              82.5            Nevada         09/04/1968
Universal Developers, Inc.  ("UDI")                                   100.0            Wisconsin      09/28/1964
Commerce/Sanseb Joint Venture ("Joint Venture")                        90.0            Wisconsin      09/22/1987
                                                                                       El Salvador
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          33,133
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               1
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,440
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    138,911
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         239,243
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           234,800
<LOANS>                                      2,381,536
<ALLOWANCE>                                     24,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,820,736
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,863,173
<SHORT-TERM>                                   391,565
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             43,686
<LONG-TERM>                                    295,596
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,840
<OTHER-SE>                                     167,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,820,736
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 86,112
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               12,036
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   329
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                98,477
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              40,029
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,809
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           41,668
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,006
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 34,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,518
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,518
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,519
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.50
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,436
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   259
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,535
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                24,324
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      758
<RECOVERIES>                                       160
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               24,732
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            24,732
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           8554


</TABLE>
EX-10.13





Exhibit 10.13



Schedule identifying agreements substantially identical to the
form of Indemnity Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.12 hereto entered into by ORBCOMM Inc. and each of the following
persons:



Jerome B. Eisenberg

Marc Eisenberg(1)

John J. Stolte, Jr.

John Franco

Marco Fuchs

Timothy Kelleher

[Didier Delepine]

[John Major]

[Hans E.W. Hoffmann]

[Gary M. Ritondaro]

[Robert G. Costantini]

[Christian G. LeBrun]



(1)  Marc Eisenberg has entered into indemnification agreements in substantially
the same form as Exhibit 10.12, in his capacity as  director, with the following subsidiaries of ORBCOMM Inc.: Satcom International Group Plc.
and MITE Global Communications S.A. de C.V.
**EXHIBIT 24**
POWER OF ATTORNEY
     KNOW ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, a director of WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby makes, designates, constitutes and appoints Howard Malovany and Ronald V. Waters, and either of them (with full power to actwithout the other), as the undersigned’s true and lawful attorneys-in-act, and agents, with full power and authority to act inany and all capacities for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned in connection with the filing, whether by paper,electronically, or otherwise, of the Company’s Annual Report to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K for thefiscal period ended December 31, 2004, and any and all amendments thereto, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
     Without limitingthe generality of the foregoing grant of authority, such attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them, are hereby granted fullpower and authority, on behalf of and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, to execute and deliver the Said Form 10-K,any and all amendments thereto, statements of changes, and any and all other documents in connection with the said Form 10-K, andtake such other and further action as such attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them, deem necessary or appropriate. Thepowers and authorities herein to such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and either of them, also include the full right, power ofauthority to effect necessary or appropriate substitutions or revocations. The undersigned hereby ratifies, confirms, and adopts, ashis own act and deed, all action lawfully taken pursuant to the powers and authorities herein granted by such attor neys-in-fact andagents, or either of them or by their respective substitutes.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has hereunto signed as of a date in January 2005.    Signatures    /s/ JOHN F.BARD DirectorJohn F. Bard    /s/ HOWARD B.BERNICK DirectorHoward B. Bernick    /s/ THOMAS A.KNOWLTON DirectorThomas A. Knowlton    /s/ PENNYPRITZKER DirectorPenny Pritzker    /s/ MELINDA R.RICH DirectorMelinda R. Rich    /s/ STEVEN B. SAMPLE DirectorSteven B. Sample    /s/ ALEX SHUMATE DirectorAlex Shumate    /s/ RICHARD K. SMUCKER DirectorRichard K. Smucker
#### Orlando GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TST DAVIS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-11733.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 18, 2012.

Garrett L. Bradford, Hilary C. Keith, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Orlando Gomez, Arcadia, FL, pro se.

Pam Bondi, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

Before WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Orlando Gomez appeals the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. He argues that the district court should have granted him leave to amend before closing this case. We agree. We shall grant Gomez leave to amend his complaint. On remand, we urge Gomez to consult the standards articulated in *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) and *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and to include sufficient facts in his complaint from which the district court can deduce whether they “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Without such facts, Gomez’s complaint will again be subject to dismissal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REOPEN CASE AND GRANT LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 417 

To encourage spectrum licensees to make unused spectrum available for 

use by rural and smaller carriers in order to expand wireless coverage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2015 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mrs. FISCHER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To encourage spectrum licensees to make unused spectrum 

available for use by rural and smaller carriers in order 

to expand wireless coverage. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Spectrum Acces5 sibility Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LICENSES. 

7 Section 307 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

8 U.S.C. 307) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 417 IS

1 ‘‘(g) EXTENSION OF LICENSES.— 

2 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this 

4 subsection— 

5 ‘‘(i) the term ‘rural area’ means any 

6 area other than— 

7 ‘‘(I) an area described in clause 

8 (i) or (ii) of section 343(a)(13)(A) of 

9 the Consolidated Farm and Rural De10 velopment Act (7 U.S.C. 

11 1991(a)(13)(A)); and 

12 ‘‘(II) a city, town, or incor13 porated area that has a population of 

14 greater than 20,000 inhabitants; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) the term ‘small carrier’ means a 

16 carrier with not more than 1,500 employ17 ees. 

18 ‘‘(B) CALCULATION OF NUMBER OF EM19 PLOYEES.—For purposes of subparagraph 

20 (A)(ii), the number of employees of a carrier 

21 shall be determined in accordance with section 

22 121.106 of title 13, Code of Federal Regula23 tions, or any successor thereto. 

24 ‘‘(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—Not later 

25 than 90 days after the date of enactment of Rural 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 417 IS

1 Spectrum Accessibility Act of 2015, the Commission 

2 shall establish a program under which a carrier that 

3 receives a license under this section may partition or 

4 disaggregate the license in order to make unused 

5 spectrum available to small carriers or carriers serv6 ing a rural area. 

7 ‘‘(3) EXTENSION OF LICENSE TERM.—Any car8 rier that receives a license under this section and 

9 participates in the program established under para10 graph (2) shall receive a 3-year extension of the li11 cense granted under this section.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1    SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, William J. Fossen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viking Capital Group,
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, 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 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  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
         b) 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 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 financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal  quarter (the  registrant's  fourth  fiscal  quarter in case of 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 officers 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 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 controls 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.


Date: November 15, 2004


/s/  William J. Fossen.
------------------------------
William J. Fossen
Chief Executive Officer



                                                                              24