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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements contained in the Company's quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified by
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,489
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,720
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,209)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,254)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,254)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1 – Consent of BDO Seidman LLP**

 

**Teletouch Communications, Inc.**

**Tyler, Texas**

 

**Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement of Teletouch Communications, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-108946 and File No. 333-108945) of our report dated August 6, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of TeletouchCommunications, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ BDO Seidman LLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

August 30, 2004
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ARON ARIAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3061

[May 12, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2015-CF-000356-AXXX-MB.

Aron Arias, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,771
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (973)
<INVENTORY>                                     13,443
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,963
<PP&E>                                          43,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,333
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,228
<SALES>                                         72,059
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,059
<CGS>                                           43,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,374<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   192<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  48
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,665)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (995)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (670)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,358)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,028)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.51)
<FN>
<F1>Research and Development Expenses
<F2>Provision for Bad Debt Expense
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eurlayne MIGUEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-14318

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 31, 2011.

Anne R. Schultz, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, John Gonsoulin, Daren Grove, Kathleen M. Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gail M. Stage, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Eurlayne Miguel, Tallahassee, FL, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gail Stage, appointed counsel for Eurlayne Miguel in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Miguel’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### Michael A. McNEIL, Debtor-Appellant, v. v. Peter MARKUSKI, Jr., Defendant-Appellee, and Brian Arthur Goldman; Nancy Spencer Grigsby, Trustees. Michael A. McNeil, Debtor-Appellant, v. Stephen A. Drazin, Defendant-Appellee, and Brian A. Goldman; Nancy Spencer Grigsby, Trustees.

Nos. 13-2269, 13-2276.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 25, 2014.

Decided: March 27, 2014.

Michael A. McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Wayne Bernstein, Goozman, Bernstein *&*Markuski, Laurel, Maryland; Stephen A. Drazin, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Michael A. McNeil appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders overruling his objections to proofs of claim in his bankruptcy proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court. *McNeil v. Markuski,*499 B.R. 484 (D.Md.2013). We deny McNeil’s motion to strike Appellee’s informal brief and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



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 of Emergency Filtration Products, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@), I, Steve M. Hanni, 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/ Steve M. Hanni

Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer



Date: May 10, 2006



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.
[21 NYS3d 587]

#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Brandon Snell, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Clinton County,

December 3, 2015

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*David W. Albers,*Plattsburgh, for defendant.

*Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney,*Plattsburgh *(Nicholas J. Evanovich*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*925OPINION OF THE COURT

Timothy J. Lawliss, J.

The People have charged Brandon Snell with misapplication of property (Penal Law § 165.00) (criminal case No. RC-0221-15), which allegedly occurred on May 31, 2015, assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) (criminal case No. RC-0222-15), which allegedly occurred on October 11, 2015, and criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15 [1]) (criminal case No. RC-0223-15), which allegedly occurred on October 22, 2015 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the instant charges).

Notwithstanding the fact that this court released defendant on November 23, 2015 on his own recognizance with respect to the instant charges, on November 24, 2015, defendant filed a “Notice of Request for Bail Hearing.” In support of his request, defendant submitted the affirmation of his attorney David W. Albers, Esq. dated November 24, 2015. In opposition to defendant’s request, the People submitted the affirmation of Assistant District Attorney Nicholas J. Evanovich dated November 28, 2015.

Defendant’s demand for a bail hearing is premised on the following argument. On November 23, 2015, the court set bail on unrelated criminal charges (criminal case No. RC-0220-15) (hereinafter the unrelated charges). Although not expressly stated, defense counsel implies that defendant either cannot post or does not intend to post bail for the unrelated charges. Defendant wants bail set for the instant charges so that the time he serves on the unrelated charges will count as time served on the instant charges. Defendant further contends that he has reached a plea agreement with the People regarding all the pending charges and unless defendant receives credit for time served on the instant charges, defendant will ultimately have to serve more jail time than contemplated by the agreement. This court has not made any commitment regarding sentencing with respect to any of the charges.

It is important to note that defendant is not seeking a reduction or modification of the bail set on the unrelated charge.

The purpose of bail is to ensure that defendant returns to court. *(See*CPL 510.30 [2] [a]; *see also People ex rel. Ryan v Infante,*108 AD2d 987 [3d Dept 1985].) The purpose of bail is not to ensure that defendant receives the maximum possible credit for time served. Defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to have bail set on a particular charge merely *926because defendant is incarcerated on an unrelated charge. As defendant is released on his own recognizance on the instant charges, the court denies defendant’s request for a bail hearing on the instant charges.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered, that defendant’s notice of request for bail hearing filed on November 24, 2015 is hereby denied.
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, James G. Ham, III, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed thisAmendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of NitroMed, Inc.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report.

Dated: May 22, 2007
|        | /s/ James G. Ham, III                                              |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | James G. Ham, III                                                  |
|   | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,   Treasurer and Secretary |

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunterra Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/    STEVEN E. WEST

Dated: May 14, 2003
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20919

Summary Calendar

 

DENNIS W. HORTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Etc; Et Al.,

Defendants,

DR. COLEMAN; DR. CHERIAN; VERNETTE PORTER,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-201

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

April 25, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis W. Horton, Texas prisoner No. 622525, appeals the

district court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing his

complaint as to the only defendants remaining in the suit,

Dr. Cherian and Ms. Vernette Porter. The record supports the

district court’s determination that Dr. Cherian provided
No. 01-20919

-2-

constitutionally adequate medical treatment for Horton’s injured

knee and that Ms. Porter was not deliberately indifferent to a

serious medical need when she allowed a nurse to respond to two

medical grievances filed by Horton, rather than responding

personally to Horton’s complaints. See Reeves v. Collins, 27

F.3d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1994); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d

320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). We find no error in the district

court’s determination that Dr. Cherian’s failure to order a

change in Horton’s work assignment does not constitute deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need. Johnson v. Treen, 759

F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985). We note that Horton’s appellate

brief does not challenge the district court’s rejection of his

claims that he received improper medical treatment for hepatitis. 

This issue is thus abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

225 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0023

CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MARK FOLLWEILER,

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 April 22, 2024, within which to prepare, file and 

serve Appellant's opening brief on appeal. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 18 2024

03/18/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0023
<TABLE> <S> <C>
     
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                       (100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EX-4.5.3




 Exhibit 4.5.3 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE STOCK 

[October 26, 2011 Warrant] 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE STOCK (this “Amendment”) is deemed effective as of
February 12th, 2013, by and between SVB FINANCIAL GROUP (“SVB Financial Group” or “Holder”) and CARBYLAN BIOSURGERY, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

 RECITALS 

A.       The Company issued the Warrant to Purchase Stock to Silicon Valley Bank on October 26,
2011, which Silicon Valley Bank subsequently assigned to SVB Financial Group, (as the same may from time to time be further amended, modified, supplemented or restated, the “Warrant”). 

B.       Silicon Valley has extended credit to the Company for the purposes permitted in the Loan and
Security Agreement dated as of October 26, 2011 between the Company and Silicon Valley Bank, as amended (as amended, the “Loan Agreement”). In connection therewith, SVB Financial Group and the Company agree to amend the
Warrant as set forth herein. 
 AGREEMENT 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which
is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows; 

1.       Definitions. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings
given to them in the Warrant. 
 2.       Amendments to Warrant. 

2.1       Definitions. 

(a)       The following definitions on page 1 of the Warrant are amended and restated in their entirety
to read as follows: 
 Number of Shares: 199,569 shares 

Warrant Price: $1.2026 

3.       General. Except as amended by the amendments set forth in Section 2 above, the
Warrant remains m full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment shall be deemed effective
upon the due execution and delivery to SVB Financial Group of this Amendment by each party hereto. 
 [Signature page follows.] 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to Warrant to
Purchase Stock to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first written above. 
  

									
	 SVB FINANCIAL GROUP
  

SVB Financial Group
	 		 	 BORROWER
  

Carbylan Biosurgery, Inc.

					
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael D. Kruse         
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ George Daniloff
        



									
	Name:	 	   Michael D. Kruse
	 		 	Name:	 	   George Daniloff



									
	Title:	 	   Treasurer
	 		 	Title:	 	   President and CEO


 [Second Amendment to October 26, 2011 Warrant] 

  
 2
EXHIBIT 32.1
                               ------------

                               CERTIFICATION
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K (the
"Report") of AMCON Distributing Company (the "Company") for the fiscal year
ended September 26, 2003, I, William F. Wright, Chariman and Principal
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge, that:

    (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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date: January 26, 2004       /s/ William F. Wright
                             ------------------------------
                             Title: Chairman and Principal
                             Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to AMCON Distributing Company and will be retained by AMCON
Distributing Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.