alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEGASUS WIRELESS CORPORATION,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-02302 JSW

ORDER SETTING HEARING AND

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF

FUNDS AND INSTRUCTING

PLAINTIFF TO FILE PROOF OF

SERVICE

(Docket No. 153)

On June 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for turnover of funds, but it did not notice that

motion for a hearing date, in accordance with the Northern District Civil Local Rules. Because

Plaintiff’s motion would not qualify as an administrative motion, it should have noticed the

motion for hearing. It also is not clear that a real party in interest to the motion, the City of

Anchorage, Alaska, has been served with the motion. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Court shall hear this motion on August

7, 2015. If Plaintiff has not served the City of Anchorage, it shall do so by no later than June

19, 2015, and shall file proof of such service with the Court. Plaintiff shall also serve a copy of

this Order on the City of Anchorage by that date. 

Any opposition to the motion shall be due by no later than July 17, 2015. Plaintiff may

file a reply by July 24, 2015. 

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-02302-JSW Document 154 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

If the Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument, it shall

advise the parties in advance of the hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02302-JSW Document 154 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      Exhibit 11.1.  Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings
  
                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                               March 31,
(Dollars in thousands)                                    1998          1997
                                                          ----          ----
<S>                                                    <C>          <C>  

Basic Earnings Per Share
------------------------

   Net income                                            $  8,251      $ 6,990
                                                         ========      =======

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:                       15,372,688   13,319,271
   ----------------------------------

   Basic earnings per share                            $     0.54   $     0.45
                                                       ==========   ==========


Diluted Earnings Per Share
--------------------------

   Net income                                            $  8,251      $ 6,990
                                                         ========      =======

   Weighted average number of common 
   and common equivalent shares:
   ---------------------------------

      Average no. of shares outstanding                15,372,688   15,319,271

      Net effect of dilutive stock options
      based on treasury stock method                        1,081      101,612

    Total average shares:                              15,373,769   15,420,883
                                                       ==========   ==========

   Diluted earnings per share                            $   0.54      $  0.45
                                                       ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****New Hampshire fiscal year ... annualreport [electronic resource].
 
2001 | 2002
 
SuDoc Number:A 114.2:N 42 H
Item Number:0034-A-01 (online)
CGP System Number:000609004
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 7, 2017********
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VITECH
AMERICA, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-3-1999
<CASH>                                      2,299,491
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                              42,832,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                3,828,004
<INVENTORY>                                34,572,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           87,893,031
<PP&E>                                     20,091,472
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,593,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            132,496,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      66,797,997
<BONDS>                                    21,361,405
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                   60,844,866
<OTHER-SE>                                (16,507,374)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              132,496,894
<SALES>                                    40,944,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           40,944,105
<CGS>                                      23,192,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              35,506,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         10,497,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (22,256,835)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (22,256,835)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                             (22,256,835)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.52)



</TABLE>
Case 3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document 67 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 4Case 3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document 67 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 4Case 3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document 67 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 4Case 3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document 67 Filed 03/04/10 Page 4 of 4
#### Eshan Realty Corp., Respondent, v. Stuyvesant Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

In an action to recover the face amount of a $20,000 fire insurance policy issued by defendant, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 8, 1960, for the full amount of the policy, in favor of plaintiff after a nonjury trial. The policy insured plaintiff in an amount not exceeding $20,000 to the extent of the actual cash value of the property (a brick apartment dwelling) at the time of loss, but not exceeding the cost of repairs or replacement. Defendant’s liability was also limited *to*the proportion of the loss which.the amount insured should bear to the whole insurance covering the property. Plaintiff was insured under another policy for $20,000, so that its whole insurance covering the property amounted to $40,000. Plaintiff settled with the second insurance company for $12,000. About seven months after the fire plaintiff, without repairing the property, sold it for $12,000. The learned trial court found that at the time of the fire the building had an actual cash value of $50,000 and that the cost of replacement was upwards of $40,000. The court awarded judgment against defendant for $20,000, holding that the amount received from the second insurance company should be credited against the cost of replacement, and that defendant was not entitled to credit for the $12,000 received by plaintiff on the sale oí the property after the fire. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by reducing the amount thereof to $12,000, plus interest and the costs of the action. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. On consideration of all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record, which in our opinion logically tend to the formation of a correct estimate of the loss (cf. *McAnarney*v. *Newark Fire Ins. Co.,*247 N. Y. 176), we find that the actual cash value of the property at the time of the loss was $24,000, and that such amount was considerably less than the cost of repair or replacement, which a witness eaEed by defendant had estimated in an amount upwards of $30,000. Defendant is required to pay to plaintiff, however, only $12,000 of the loss, as limited by such actual cash value, since plaintiff has already received $12,000 from the other insurance company. The trial court properly refused to reduce defendant’s liability by giving it a further credit in the amount received by plaintiff on the sale of the property after the fire. Plaintiff’s loss was required to be computed as of the time of the fire and defendant was not entitled to credit for any payment made for the property by a third party, not on defendant’s behalf, or on behalf of any other insurer (cf. *Tiemann*v. *Citizens’ Ins. Co.,*76 App. Div. 5; *Rosenbloom*v. *Maryland Ins. Co.,*258 App. Div. 14; *Foley*v. *Manufacturers’ Fire Ins. Co.,*152 N. Y. 131). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur. [25 Misc 2d 828.]
**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**

| 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                Partnership. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Nancy J. McGurk                                     |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Nancy                J. McGurk                                         |
| Chief                Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| March                30, 2006                                          |
|                                                                   |
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT SVLG TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ANITA HUNTER, an individual; JOHNNA 

BOZZO, an individual; CELLTEX SITE 

SERVICES, LTD., a Texas Limited Co.; 

GRANDE INVESTMENT, LLC, a Colorado 

Limited Liability Co.; QUIRK INFINITI, INC., 

a Massachusetts corporation; MICHAEL 

WHITTON, an individual; SADI SUHWEIL, as 

Trustee of the Suhweil Revocable Trust; and all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITIBANK, N.A., a Nevada corporation; 

COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, a Virginia 

corporation; BANK OF AMERICA 

CORPORATION, dba BANK OF AMERICA, 

N.A., a North Carolina corporation; UNITED 

WESTERN BANK (f/k/a MATRIX CAPITAL 

BANK), a Colorado corporation; BOULDER 

CAPITAL, LLC, a Massachusetts corporation; 

BOULDER COLUMBUS LLC, a Massachusetts 

Limited Liability Co.; BOULDER WEST 

OAKS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Co.; 

BOULDER HOLDINGS, VI, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Co.; BOULDER HOLDINGS 

X, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Co.; ROY 

S. MACDOWELL, JR., an individual; 

CORDELL FUNDING, LLP, a Florida Limited 

Liability Partnership; CORDELL 

CONSULTANTS INC. MONEY PURCHASE 

PLAN, a Qualified Retirement Plan Trust; 

CORDELL CONSULTANTS NEW YORK, 

LLC, a New York Limited Liability Co.; ROBIN 

RODRIGUEZ, an individual; JORDEN BURT, 

LLP, a Connecticut Limited Liability 

Partnership; KUTAK ROCK, LLP, a Nebraska 

Limited Liability Partnership; JOSEPH O. 

KAVAN, an individual; FOLEY & LARDNER, 

LLP, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Partnership; 

STEPHEN I. BURR, an individual; and 

SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP, a California 

Law Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 5:09-cv-02079-JW 

Assigned to: Honorable James Ware 

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING 

TIME FOR DEFENDANT SVLG TO 

RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

Case 3:09-cv-02079-JCS Document 295 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 2
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT SVLG TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court, after considering the Stipulation Extending Time For Defendant SVLG To 

Respond To The Second Amended Complaint, hereby ORDERS that Defendant SVLG shall have 

an extension of time to and including March 31, 2010, within which to answer, move against, or 

otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED on this ___ day of _________, 2010. 

________________________________ 

Hon. James Ware 

United States District Judge

29 March 

Case 3:09-cv-02079-JCS Document 295 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,807
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,598,504
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,020,841
<PP&E>                                       1,943,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                (692,564)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,300,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,105,122
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        500
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                     194,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,300,437
<SALES>                                      3,154,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,154,145
<CGS>                                        3,526,853
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,526,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (721,205)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (721,205)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (721,205)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.18)


</TABLE>
#### (A) Thomas Dunn v. 20 East 53rd Street Luncheonette, Inc. (B) Alfred F. Muscolino v. Anton Keppel et al.

[In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before August 14, 1962, with notice of argument for the September 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
RICHARD M. ROGERS, #045843 

Law Office of Richard M. Rogers 

100 Bush Street, #I980 

San Francisco, CA 94 104 

Telephone: 415198 1-9788 

Facsimile: 4 15198 1-9798 

Attorneys for BRC Group, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRC GROUP, LLC, a California Limited ) Case No. 3:09-cv-01506-WHA 

Liability Company, 1 

1 

Plaintiff, ) 

) STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 

) DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

VS. 

QUEPASA CORPORATION, a Nevada { 

Corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, ) 

Defendants. 

QUEPASA CORPORATION, a Nevada 

Corporation, ) 

Counter-Claimant, 

VS. ) 

BRC GROUP, LLC, a California Limited ) Liability Co., and ROES 1 to 10, inclusive, ) 

Counter-Defendants. 

1 

Case No. 3:09-cv-01506-WHA STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Case 3:09-cv-01506-WHA Document 52 Filed 05/10/10 Page 4 of 5
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through 

2 their designated counseI that the abovecaptioned action be and hereby is dismissed with I I 

3 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41(a)(l). I I I 

4 I I Dated: n arch& 201 0 LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD M. ROGERS I 

44 RlCHARD M. ROGER 

Attorneys for ~laintiaounter-~efendant BRC 

Group, LLC 

10 Dated: ~arch4 201 0 

11 

12 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: March ,201 0 

Attorneys for Defendancounter-Claimant 

Quepasa Corporation 

William H. Alsup 

Judge, United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California 

May 10

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cv-01506-WHA Document 52 Filed 05/10/10 Page 5 of 5
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Jordan, Appellant.

Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on June 8, 1977, unanimously affirmed. Appellant’s application for leave to submit late reply brief granted. No opinion. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Joseph
      Restivo, Chief Financial Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended
      September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




/s/
                  Joseph RestivoJoseph
                  RestivoChief
                  Financial OfficerDated:
                  November 8, 2007




1
### Summary of water-surface-elevation data for 116 U.S. Geological Survey lake and reservoir stations in Texas and comparison to data for water year 2006

By: William H. Asquith**Joseph Vrabel**Meghan C. Roussel

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds287

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (30.8 MB pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with numerous Federal, State, municipal, and local agencies, currently (2007) collects data for more than 120 lakes and reservoirs in Texas through a realtime, data-collection network. The National Water Information System that processes and archives water-resources data for the Nation provides a central source for retrieval of real-time as well as historical data. This report provides a brief description of the real-time, data-collection network and graphically summarizes the period-of-record daily mean water-surface elevations for 116 active and discontinued USGS lake and reservoir stations in Texas. The report also graphically depicts selected statistics (minimum, maximum, and mean) of daily mean water-surface-elevation data. The data for water year 2006 are compared to the selected statistics.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.