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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying Registration
Statement and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000896421
<NAME> STEEL HEDDLE MFG. CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (161)
<INVENTORY>                                     18,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,428
<PP&E>                                          46,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8,715)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,262
<BONDS>                                        128,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   193,493
<SALES>                                         36,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,140
<CGS>                                           27,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,517)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,873)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,873)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0



</TABLE>
M e m o r a ndu m t o F il e

Subj e c t: C o m m un i c a t i o n s b e t w ee n EP Aa n d Sa l t R i v e r P im a -M a ri c o p a I n d ia n C o m m u n i t y ( S R P M IC) a nd P h o e n i x C e m e n t C o m p a n y( P CC) o n R e as o n a b l e P r o g r e ss F I P

F r o m: C o ll e e n M c Ka u g h a n , A ss o c ia t e D ir e c t o r , A ir D i v i si o n

T o: Fil e

D a t e: J u n e 13 , 20 1 4

P a r t i c i pan ts :

S RPM IC: P r e si d e n t D ia n e E n os

P CC : V e r l e M ar t z

E P A: C o ll e e n M c K a u g h a n , A ss o c ia t e D ir e c t o r, Ai rD i v i si o n

Su mm a r y: Th e r e w as a n e xc h a n g e o f e m ails , fo l l o w e d b y a l e tt e rf r o m P r e si d e n t E n o s , p r e s e n t i n g S R P M IC a n d P CC ’ s v i e w s o n t h e t w o c o m p lia n c e o p t i o n s ( l b /t o n a n d a n nu a l t o n n ag e li mi t ) a n d h o w t h e f l e x i b i li t yo f t h o s e t w o o p t i o n s s h o u l d b e s t a t e d i n th e F I P , a n d i m p l e m e nt e d
p o s t 20 1 8

.
M a t e r ials : M a y2 2 , 2 014 , L e t t e r f r o m P r e s i d e nt D i a n e E n o s, S R P M IC , t o Ja r e d B l u m e n f e l d , R e gi o n 9 A d m i n is t ra t o rw i t h 5 /1 4 / 14 , 5 / 12 / 14 , 5 / 6/ 1 4 , a n d 5 / 1/ 1 4 e m ail s b e t w ee n C o l l ee n M c Ka u g h a n , E P A, a nd , V e rl e M ar t z , P CC a tt a c h e d

E m ail f r o m C o l l ee n M c K a u g h a n , EP A , t o V e rl e M a r tz , P CC , o n 5 / 30 / 1 4
#### Anthony PICKETT, Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Appellees.

No. 00-7187.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 27, 2002.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge; HENDERSON, and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

*4
      *JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment filed October 30, 2001, be affirmed. The court correctly held that appellant failed to state the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction and the nature of the relief sought, as required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing *en banc. See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ENVIROTEST SYSTEMS
CORP. FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,536
<SECURITIES>                                    51,643
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,197
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,886
<PP&E>                                         232,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 379,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,371
<BONDS>                                        359,324
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           165
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,037)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   379,505
<SALES>                                         36,937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,937
<CGS>                                           23,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    627
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,871
<INVENTORY>                                    112,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               264,748
<PP&E>                                         504,463
<DEPRECIATION>                               (232,759)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 626,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          193,667
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   626,025
<SALES>                                        607,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               607,000
<CGS>                                          517,562
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  517,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,941
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   273
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,941
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,807
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,134
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

125 

CA 13-00287 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

A&M GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORP., 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NORTHTOWN UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C., 

JOHN M. ROEHMHOLDT AND JACEK T. SOSNOWSKI, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

HOGAN WILLIG, PLLC, AMHERST (ROBERT MICHALAK OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. WILLETT OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT JOHN M. ROEHMHOLDT.

HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (EARL K. CANTWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT JACEK T. SOSNOWSKI. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A.

Michalek, J.), entered December 11, 2012. The order, among other

things, awarded defendant Jacek T. Sosnowski attorneys’ fees and costs

against plaintiff. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion of defendant

Jacek T. Sosnowski and vacating the award of attorneys’ fees and costs

against plaintiff and as modified the order is affirmed without costs. 

Same Memorandum as in A&M Global Mgt. Corp. v Northtown Urology

Assoc., P.C. ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 28, 2014). 

Entered: March 28, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-61301-CIV-SMITH

WILLIAM VILCINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, 

L.P., and PINNACLE CREDIT 

SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ELECTION TO JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FOR FINAL DISPOSITION OF MOTIONS

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the undersigned party or parties to the abovecaptioned civil matter hereby voluntarily elect to have a United States Magistrate Judge decide the following 

motions and issue a final order or judgment with respect thereto:

1. Motions to Dismiss Yes ____ No _X___

2. Motions for Summary Judgment Yes ____ No __X__

3. Motions for Attorneys’ Fees Yes ____ No ___X_

4. Motions for Costs Yes ____ No __X__

5. Motions for Sanctions Yes ____ No __X__

6. All Pretrial Motions Yes ____ No __X__

7. Discovery Yes __X__ No ____

8. Other (explain below) Yes ____ No ___X_

Case 0:20-cv-61301-RS Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2020 Page 1 of 2
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI

By: /s/ Thomas J. Patti

 JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQUIRE

 FL Bar No. 118259

 THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQUIRE

 FL Bar No. 118377

 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744

 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

 jibrael@jibraellaw.com

 tom@jibraellaw.com

 Counsel for Plaintiff

MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.

By: /s/John M. Marees, II

LAUREN M. BURNETTE, ESQUIRE

FL Bar No. 0120079

JOHN M. MAREES, II, ESQUIRE

FL Bar No. 0069879

12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 720

Jacksonville, FL 32223

(904) 527-1172

(904) 683-7353 (fax)

lburnette@messerstrickler.com

jmarees@messerstrickler.com

Counsel for Defendants

Case 0:20-cv-61301-RS Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2020 Page 2 of 2
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

 www.nrc.gov

No. I-03-060 October 2, 2003

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NOTE TO EDITORS:

MEETING BETWEEN NRC AND NORTH JERSEY HOSPITAL IS POSTPONED

A meeting scheduled for this morning between the NRC staff and representatives of

Union City (N.J.) Diagnostic Center has been postponed. A company official notified the NRC

late last night that representatives would be unable to attend today’s scheduled predecisional

enforcement conference to discuss apparent violations at the center. The meeting had been

scheduled for 10 a.m. in the Region I Office in King of Prussia. No new date has been set. 

###
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 00-50521 Summary Calendar

_____________________ FIRSTCITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION; ET AL., Plaintiffs, FIRST CITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, NA; CHASE SECURITIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. W-99-CV-277)

_______________________________________________________

November 20, 2000 Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *2

FirstCity Financial Corporation appeals from the dismissal of its action against Chase Bank of Texas and Chase Securities, Inc. (CSI). The district court dismissed FirstCity’s case based on a forum selection clause in its engagement agreement with CSI. We review this determination de novo. See Afram Carriers, Inc. v. Moeykens , 145 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 1998). FirstCity contends the clause is unenforceable under Fifth Circuit precedent because (1) the clause was induced by fraud and overreaching, (2) its enforcement would contravene public policy, and (3) its scope does not reach FirstCity’s claims under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, ch. 240, 70 Stat. 133 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 12 U.S.C.). The Supreme Court has made it clear that forum selection clauses are favored and will be enforced absent a clear showing of unreasonableness. See M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co ., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972); Haynsworth v. The Corporation , 121 F.3d 956, 962-63 (5th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, this Circuit has stated that “[f]raud and overreaching must be specific to a forum selection clause in order to invalidate it.” Id . (citing Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co ., 417 U.S. 506, 519, n.14 (1974)). For the following reasons we must agree with the splendid order of the district court. FirstCity fails to meet its burden because (1) FirstCity cannot produce3

evidence that the forum selection clause itself, as opposed to the contract in general, is a product of fraud or overreaching, and any disparity in bargaining positions is mitigated by the fact that both parties to the agreement were sophisticated financial institutions represented by competent counsel; (2) no public policy at issue is strong enough to trump the presumption in favor of forum selection clauses; and (3) each of FirstCity’s claims relate to its engagement of CSI, and thus, each falls within the scope of the forum selection clause. AFFIRMED.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-33,972-89

EX PARTE HERMAN LEE KINDRED, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. FR 30721-M IN THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BELL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of burglary of a motor vehicle and sentenced to five years’

imprisonment after revocation of shock probation. Applicant filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

We have previously dismissed five subsequent applications in this cause. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 4. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to raise grounds

that were previously rejected on the merits or that should have been raised in previous applications. 

We hold that Applicant has abused the writ and filed a frivolous lawsuit. See Ex parte Jones, 97
2

S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 498.0045(a-1). Should Applicant file

future habeas applications in this cause, we will not consider the merits of his applications unless

he shows that the factual or legal basis of his grounds was unavailable in a previously filed

application. This application is dismissed. 

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Filed: January 12, 2022

Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6535

ROBERT LEE COBBS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Justice Committee;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-1577-0-20BD)

Submitted: January 6, 1998 Decided: January 22, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Cobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Cobbs seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinions accepting the magistrate judge's report and find

no reversible error. Cobbs's petition challenged the voluntariness

of his guilty plea and alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Cobbs failed to preserve these issues for our

review, both by failing to file timely objections to the magistrate

judge's recommendation that these claims be denied despite being

warned that such failure would waive appellate review, see Wright

v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985), and by failing to

raise these issues in his informal brief, see Local Rule 34(b).

Cobbs's only remaining contention is that a post-conviction

affidavit submitted by the victim of his crime recanting her trial

testimony proves his actual innocence. We dismiss this claim on

the reasoning of the district court. See Cobbs v. South Carolina,

No. CA-96-1577-20BD (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 1997). Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# REACTOR OPERATING EXPERIENCE TFR

Accession Number: ML040080006

Date Released: Wednesday, January 14, 2004

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML040080005 - Reactor Operating Experience Task Force Report. (3 page(s), 1/9/2004)
    - ML033350063 - Reactor Operating Experience Task Force Report, Final Report. (88 page(s), 11/26/2003)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### §5301. Representatives' and Delegates' salaries payable monthly

Representatives and Delegates-elect to Congress, whose credentials in due form of law have been duly filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in accordance with the provisions of section 26 of this title, may receive their compensation monthly, from the beginning of their term until the beginning of the first session of each Congress, upon a certificate in the form now in use to be signed by the Clerk of the House, which certificate shall have the like force and effect as is given to the certificate of the Speaker.

(R.S. §38; Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 130, §1, 18 Stat. 389.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 34 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

R.S. §38 derived from act Mar. 3, 1873, ch. 226, §1, 17 Stat. 488.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner** 

**v. LeROY NATHANIEL STRICKLAND,**  **Respondent :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 2075 Disciplinary Docket No. 3** 

**No. 86 DB 2014 Attorney Registration No. 29498**  **(Out of State)**

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW **, this 18 th**  **day of March, 2016, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Discip**  **linary Board, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby**  **granted, and LeRoy Nathaniel Strickland is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Co**  **mmonwealth for a period of one year, retroactive to November 6, 2014, and he sh**  **all comply with all the provisions**

**of Pa.R.D.E. 217. It is further ORDERED that Respondent shall pay costs to**  **the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).**
#### In the Matter of Jack Eisenstein, Appellant, against Arthur W. Wallander, as Commissioner of Police of the City of New York, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Mexoro Minerals Limited (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2006, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:  (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 results of operations of the Company.   Date: April 3, 2007 /s/ Robert Knight Chief Executive Officer