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

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               131,598
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     131,598
<PP&E>                                               864,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       996,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                352,401
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              14,880
<OTHER-SE>                                         2,365,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         996,282
<SALES>                                                1,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,812
<CGS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      84,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         84,117
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (82,305)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        2,235,504
<SECURITIES>                  15,568,398
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              18,327,892
<PP&E>                        1,942,151
<DEPRECIATION>                1,326,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                24,450,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,600,286
<BONDS>                       314,167
<COMMON>                      143,666
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    22,392,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  24,450,537
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,677,339
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              3,198,249
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            27,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,348,060)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,348,060)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.16)


</TABLE>
#### Underwood v. Warren and another.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

September 17, 1884.)

Patents—Estoppei,.

A patentee is estopped, as against an assignee, to claim, in a suit for an infringement, that tlio patent assigned is invalid.

In Equity. Exceptions to parts of answer.

This is a suit for the infringement of a patent on an improvement on railroad-track drills, invented by the complainant. The bill alleges, in substance, that the patent claimed to have been infringed was issued to the complainant, and Andrew Warren and Perrin Gr. March, the defendants, while they wore doing business together as partners; that their partnership was subsequently dissolved, and that upon its dissolution Warren and March assigned their interests in said patent to complainant for a valuable consideration, and that he then became, and still remains, its sole owner, and that since said assignments were made to complainant the defendants have manufactured and sold infringing machines, and still continue to do so.

The answer alleges, in substance, that complainant’s patent is invalid. To this the complainant excepts, and raises the point that the defendants are estopped to deny the validitv of said patent.

*G. M. Stewart,*for complainant.

*Parkinson & Parkinson,*for defendants.

1

 Reported by Benj. E. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Treat, J.

The bill alleges that the Underwood patent was issued to Underwood, Warren, and March, each one-third interest. It also avers sundry transactions between the respective parties, wliereby said Warren and March conveyed all their interest therein to plaintiff for full consideration. This court, at its last term, examined at length all of the points substantially involved,2 and. held that the respective parties defendant were estopped from disputing the validity of plaintiff’s right.

The exceptions, without resort to verbal criticism, are directed to the question of estoppel, and, under the allegations of the bill and answer with respect thereto, the ruling of this court, in the light of authorities there cited, must prevail, and the exceptions be sustained.

2

 See *Rumsey*v. *Buck,*20 Fed. Rep. 697.
H. Res. 147

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 19, 2003.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 975) to amend title 11 of the United States

Code, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for

the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the

Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee
2

•HRES 147 EH

amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No

amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in

the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the

Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
3

•HRES 147 EH

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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
Zero Gravity Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy Peach, principal financial officer
of the Company, 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 best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)	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 result of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Timothy Peach           | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Principal Financial Officer | 



March 31, 2015



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-Q
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          15,904
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,062
<ALLOWANCES>                                       174
<INVENTORY>                                        105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,569
<PP&E>                                          15,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,397
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,087
<SALES>                                         13,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,423
<CGS>                                            4,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (606)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    754
<INCOME-TAX>                                       239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                515
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       515
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1997 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      36,496,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,065,799
<ALLOWANCES>                                   287,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,894,389
<PP&E>                                       2,211,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                 574,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,716,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,547,635
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                    49,551,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (382,562)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,716,437
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,578,284
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,170,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,231,395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (418,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (418,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (418,386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.063)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.063)
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 4, 2022

No. 04-21-00365-CV

IN RE The John O. YATES Trust

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 116847

Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s reply brief is currently due on January 10, 2022. On December 23, 2021,

appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file his reply brief until January 21, 

2022. 

After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file his reply brief

by January 21, 2022.

It is so ORDERED on January 4, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
No. 1155.

#### Bledsoe *v.*Johnston, Warden.

June 10, 1946.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General McGrath*and *Robert S. Erdahl*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1133 

CAF 11-00655 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF JUDY ANDERSON, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YASIN TISDALE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

MINDY L. MARRANCA, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

MARY ANNE CONNELL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BUFFALO, FOR NASIR Y.T.

AND NADIA S.-Y.T. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M.

Carter, J.), entered February 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for

modification of custody. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of Tisdale v Anderson (___ AD3d ___

[Nov. 16, 2012]).

Entered: November 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00271-CV 

 

MAURO E. GARZA AND EVERETT HOLDINGS, LLC, APPELLANTS 

V. 

JULIA PEREZ, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 57th District Court 

Bexar County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. 2023-CI-08559, Honorable Tina Torres, Presiding 

August 31, 2023 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Mauro E. Garza and Everett Holdings, LLC, appeal from the trial court’s 

Order Denying Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss (TCPA). Appellee, Julia 

Perez, has filed a cross-notice of appeal. We remand the appeal for further proceedings.

The appellate record was originally due on July 10, 2023. The clerk’s record has

been filed. However, the court reporter has not filed the reporter’s record or requested 

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

an extension of time to file the record to date. By letter of August 10, 2023, we notified 

the reporter that the record was overdue and directed her to advise the Court of the status 

of the record by August 21. We have received no communication from the reporter since.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (“The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.”); 37.3(a)(2) (requiring 

appellate courts to “make whatever order is appropriate to avoid further delay and to 

preserve the parties’ rights” when the appellate record is not timely filed). On remand, 

the trial court shall determine the following:

(1) what tasks remain to complete the filing of the reporter’s record;

(2) why the reporter has not completed the necessary tasks;

(3) what amount of time is reasonably necessary for the completion of those 

tasks; and

(4) whether the reporter can complete the tasks within the time the trial court 

finds reasonable.

Should the trial court determine that the reporter will require more than thirty days 

to complete, certify, and file the reporter’s record, it shall arrange for a substitute reporter 

to do so. The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental clerk’s record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by October 

2, 2023.
3

Should the reporter file the record on or before September 14, 2023, she is directed 

to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall 

not be required to take any further action.

All appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the Court.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

431 

TP 14-00414 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF NATHANIEL JAY, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

HAROLD GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT, AUBURN 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, AND MICHAEL J. OUIMETTE, 

LIEUTENANT, RESPONDENTS. 

NATHANIEL JAY, PETITIONER PRO SE. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Mark H.

Fandrich, A.J.], entered February 28, 2014) to review a determination

of respondents. The determination found after a tier II hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously

dismissed without costs as moot (see Matter of Free v Coombe, 234 AD2d

996) 

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
The Honorable Robert R. Beezer, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of 1

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

__________

No. 97-1401

__________

United States of America, *

 *

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

 * District of Missouri

Fredrick Eskridge, *

 *

Defendant - Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

__________

Submitted: June 12, 1997

 Filed: July 3, 1997

__________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, BEEZER and WOLLMAN, Circuit 1

Judges.

__________

PER CURIAM

Frederick Eskridge appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and we affirm.

Suspecting him of carrying illegal drugs, law enforcement officers

attempted to detain Eskridge in the Kansas City, Missouri airport while

they applied for a search warrant for his person. He assaulted them and

fled on foot. While fleeing the officers, Eskridge discarded a package

of cocaine that he carried on his person. The officers arrested him

shortly thereafter. In a search incident to arrest, the officers

discovered three additional packages of cocaine.

Eskridge entered a guilty plea for possession of cocaine with

intent to distribute, 
conditioned on his appeal of his motion to suppress the seized evidence. 

On appeal, Eskridge argues his detention amounted to a stop, but not an

arrest. We need not address the particulars of the attempted detention. 

Eskridge’s assault of the officers and his flight provided probable

cause for the subsequent arrest. United States v. Dawdy, 46 F.3d 1427,

1431 (8th Cir. 1995). The district court did not err in denying

Eskridge’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 89 

To repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act. 

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 ‘‘Financial Takeover 

5 Repeal Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

8 Protection Act (Public Law 111–203) is repealed, and the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 89 IS

1 provisions of law amended by such Act are revived or re2 stored as if such Act had not been enacted. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS