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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999             JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-03-1998             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998             AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                         107,552                 107,552
<SECURITIES>                                    16,315                  16,315
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     69,163                  69,163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,470                 213,470
<PP&E>                                         205,929                 205,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,434                 105,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,438                 335,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,026                  48,026
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         9,843                   9,843
<OTHER-SE>                                     267,871                 267,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   335,438                 335,438
<SALES>                                        151,429                 284,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,429                 284,391
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,442                 141,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,775                 106,850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,212                  35,991
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,481                  13,319
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                  22,672
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,731                  22,672
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25                     .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25                     .44
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael A. Keller, Respondent, v Constance A. Keller, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 5, 1978 in Tompkins County, which denied defendant’s motion for an order relieving her of her failure to serve a timely demand for a jury trial. In this contested divorce action, defendant wife admittedly filed her demand for a jury trial more than one month late on April 9, 1978, and plaintiff husband objected to her demand. By order to show cause defendant thereupon moved, pursuant to CPLR 4102 (subd [e]), for relief from her tardy filing, and her request was denied by Special Term. This appeal followed. We hold that the order of Special Term should be affirmed. In its discretion the court may excuse a late filing, but only if no undue prejudice to the rights of another party would result (CPLR 4102, subd [e]). Here, it appears that plaintiff’s attorney, in reliance upon defendant’s failure to demand a jury trial within the statutorily prescribed time, made certain other trial commitments and that, as a result, the resolution of this case involving the custody of two young children would have been unjustifiably delayed had defendant’s motion been granted. Furthermore, defendant changed attorneys at about the same time that her time to demand a jury trial expired, and there is no adequate showing that her former attorney’s failure to demand a jury trial was inadvertent and not an intentional waiver of that right (cf. *Fils v Diener,*59 AD2d 522; *Zelvin v Pagliocca,*32 AD2d 561) in that there is no factual affidavit from either the defendant or her first attorney to support this argument. This omission is fatal to defendant’s late demand for a jury trial. Under these circumstances, the order appealed from should not be disturbed. Order affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

134007 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver & (45) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134007 COA: 268149 Saginaw CC: 05-026472-FC ANDRE TRELL MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to dismiss is DENIED.

l0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
#### Arthur A. Knapp, Respondent, v. Gloria Knapp, Appellant.

Order, entered December 23, 1963, which among other things granted custody of the children for a specified period to plaintiff husband, unanimously modified, on the facts, the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of forthwith remanding the proceeding for immediate hearing to the Justice presiding at Special Term, Part XII, of the Supreme Court, New York County, for a determination of the reserved issue as to the custody of the children after *762the end of the current school year, and said order is otherwise affirmed, without costs. For the following reasons the determination as to future custody should be made *ele novo.*The hearings on the matter under review were adjourned to October 8, 1963, to await the report of a court-appointed psychiatrist. The court, however, rendered its decision without affording the parties further hearing. It may be that the failure of the wife to object to or her acquiescence in the independent professional inquiries made by the court and its private interviews with the children were based on a belief that hearings would be continued; and that if not furnished with copies of the psychiatrists’s reports or the substance of the court’s interviews of the children there might at least be suggested at such continued hearings lines of inquiry through which she could address herself to matters in dispute *(Kesseler*v. *Kesseler,*10 N Y 2d 445). Also, the court directed a psychiatrist to submit monthly reports on the condition of the children, which might bear importantly on the continuing issue of custody. Therefore, because of the truncated original proceeding and the significant evidence that will no doubt be introduced of the recent half year of experience in custody of the father, we deem it advisable that the hearings for which this matter is remanded be regarded as though they were in relation to a new and separate custody proceeding rather than solely in implementation of the order of December 23, 1963. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ..
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38363

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

GABRIEL FLORES

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 754

Filed: December 21, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Thi rd Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years, with minimum periods of confinement of seven and one

- half years , for aggravated battery and attempted strangulation

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, B oise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Gabriel Flores was convicted of aggravated battery , Idaho Code § § 18

- 903(b), 18

- 907(a)

, and attempted strangulation , I.C. § 18

- 923. The district court sentenced Flores to concurrent

u nified sentences of fifteen years, with minimum period s of confinement of seven and one

- half

years

. Flores appeals, contending that his sentence s are excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Flores ’s judgment of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
### §2138. Purchase of dogs or cats by United States Government facilities prohibited except from authorized operators of auction sales and licensed dealers or exhibitors

No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States which uses animals for research or experimentation or exhibition shall purchase or otherwise acquire any dog or cat for such purposes from any person except an operator of an auction sale subject to section 2142 of this title or a person holding a valid license as a dealer or exhibitor issued by the Secretary pursuant to this chapter unless such person is exempted from obtaining such license under section 2133 of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–544, §8, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; Pub. L. 91–579, §9, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1562.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1970—Pub. L. 91–579 inserted reference to instrumentalities of the United States which use animals for exhibition and added operators of auction sales subject to section 2142 of this title and licensed exhibitors to the enumeration of persons from whom United States Government facilities may acquire dogs or cats.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–579 effective one year after Dec. 24, 1970, see section 23 of Pub. L. 91–579, set out as a note under section 2131 of this title.
Case: 1:12-cv-01273 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-01273 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-01273 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-01273 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-01273 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5
### §138e. Reporting

#### (a) In general

Each laboratory or individual that performs, brokers, or otherwise arranges for the performance of a pesticide chemical analysis of food shall prepare and submit a report, simultaneously to the Secretary, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and to the owner of such food, that shall contain any finding of pesticide chemical residues in such food—

(1) for which no chemical residue tolerance or exemption has been established;

(2) that is in excess of residue tolerances; or

(3) for which the chemical residue tolerance has been revoked or the chemical residue is otherwise not permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency.

#### (b) Timing of report

A laboratory shall submit the report required under subsection (a) to the Secretary, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the owner of such food as soon as practicable after the completion of the analysis of such food.

#### (c) Guidelines

The Secretary shall adopt standardized reporting guidelines to be applied to laboratories under this section and shall provide such guidelines to laboratories accredited under this chapter, as well as other sources of information regarding applicable pesticide chemical tolerances.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIII, §1326, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3565.)
#### § 94.1 Purpose.

This part prescribes uniform procedures acceptable to the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice, to (a) facilitate the naturalization of aliens who have served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States and to (b) militarily certify alien dependents seeking naturalization under the provisions of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, sections 319(b) and 323(c) (8 U.S.C. 1430(b) and 1434(c)); and furnishes policy guidance to the Secretaries of the Military Departments governing discharge or release from active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States of permanent-residence aliens who desire to be naturalized as U.S. citizens under the provisions of Act of June 27, 1952, section 328 (66 Stat. 249); 8 U.S.C. 1439.
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.26

F. ROBERT TIDDENS
                                                      8360 East Hinsdale Avenue
                                                           Englewood, CO  80112

===============================================================================

Phone 303-779-3681
Fax 978-438-0629
Email:  rtiddensshorco@att.net


                                    AGREEMENT

April 29, 1999

Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company
751 Horizon Ct. Ste. # 205
Grand Junction, CO 881506

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to that certain Merger Agreement (The Agreement) dated February 6,
1998, between Shoreline Resource Company, Inc. (Shorco), and Colorado Wyoming
Reserve Company (CWYR), said Agreement provided for a $54,000.00 retainer fee to
be paid to F. Robert Tiddens, the President of Shorco, as additional
consideration of The Agreement. Due to a limited budget, it has been determined
that a reduction in this retainer fee will be in the best interest of the
shareholders of CWYR and will assist in preserving capital for the continued
operation of the Company.

Therefor, it is agreed that the undersigned will reduce this fee to $27,000.00
payable five (5) days from acceptance hereof, which will represent payment in
full and satisfaction of all provisions under The Agreement subject to the
following additional conditions:

1. Due to the aforementioned limited budget, it will be necessary to solicit an
industry partner to engage the proposed 3 dimensional seismic survey and
potential drilling partner in the Paradox Basin Project in San Juan County, UT.
F. Robert Tiddens will offer his industry expertise and contacts to seek such
partner for the sum of $40.00 per hour plus reasonable expenses. Said service
will be invoiced bi-monthly and shall be due and payable five (5) days from
invoice.

2. In addition, should the undersigned or anyone else involved in the team
soliciting a partner for the Paradox Project be successful in consummating a
sharing arrangement, defined herein as any arrangement that will significantly
enhance the value of the Paradox Project such as a seismic survey and/or a
drilling commitment, an Overriding Royalty of 1% of 8/8ths shall be assigned to
F. Robert Tiddens under all acreage subject to any agreement thereof. In
addition, in the case of a sale, merger and or financing arrangement of CWYR,
said Overriding Royalty shall also apply if the undersigned contributes a
significant amount of time and effort initiating and/or consummating said
transaction.


<PAGE>


If the foregoing terms are acceptable, please sign in the space provided below,
forwarding the enclosed extra copy to the undersigned within five (5) days of
receipt hereof.

Sincerely,


/S/ F. ROBERT TIDDENS

F. Robert Tiddens and Shoreline Resources Company, Inc.

Agreed to and Accepted,
Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company


By:/S/KIM M. FUERST

CC:  Trinity Petroleum Management, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR 

BROADWAY BANK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. No. 12-cv-1665 

DEMETRIS GIANNOULIAS, GEORGE 

GIANNOULIAS, JAMES MCMAHON, 

SEAN CONLON, STEVEN DRY, DONNA 

ZAGORSKI, STEVEN BALOURDOS, 

GLORIA SGUROS, ANTHONY D’COSTA, 

Defendants. 

JURY DEMANDED 

Judge John F. Grady 

Magistrate Judge Daniel G. Martin 

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 21, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as 

counsel may be heard, we shall appear before the Honorable Daniel G. Martin in Courtroom 

1350 of the United States Courthouse at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, and then 

and there present CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CITE 

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL 

SUBPOENA RESPONSES BY THIRD PARTY FDIC-C, a true and correct copy of which was 

filed electronically through the Court’s electronic filing system and served upon you. 

Dated: October 15, 2014 Respectfully submitted, 

DEMETRIS GIANNOULIAS 

and GEORGE GIANNOULIAS 

By: /s/ Eric Y. Choi 

 One of Their Attorneys 

William L. Charron, Esq. 

Bryan T. Mohler, Esq. 

PRYOR CASHMAN LLP 

7 Times Square 

New York, New York 10036 

T: (212) 421-4100 

F: (212) 326-0806 

wcharron@pryorcashman.com 

bmohler@pryorcashman.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 236 Filed: 10/15/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:4113
- 2 - 

-andEric Y. Choi, Esq. 

NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP 

Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700 

Chicago Illinois 60602 

T: (312) 827-1053 

F: (312) 980-0736 

echoi@ngelaw.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 236 Filed: 10/15/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:4114
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Eric Y. Choi, an attorney, hereby certify that the foregoing NOTICE OF MOTION and 

CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CITE SUPPLEMENTAL 

AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL CERTAIN 

INTERROGATORY ANSWERS were served upon all counsel of record via the Court’s Case 

Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system on October 15, 2014. 

 /s/ Eric Y. Choi 

Case: 1:12-cv-01665 Document #: 236 Filed: 10/15/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:4115
* 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. 02-40268 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAIME GARZA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-629-1

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jaime Garza-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garza argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Garza acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), butNo. 02-40268 -2-
asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# April 2021 FOIA Log
DM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0646

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

V. NAVA CRUZITA CONNOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including November 24, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 18 2020

09/18/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0646
13.500 General. ( a ) This subpart authorizes the use of simplified procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services in amounts greater than the simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $7.5 million ($15 million for acquisitions as described in 13.500(c)), including options, if the contracting officer reasonably expects, based on the nature of the supplies or services sought, and on market research, that offers will include only commercial products or commercial services. Contracting officers may use any simplified acquisition procedure in this part, subject to any specific dollar limitation applicable to the particular procedure. The purpose of these simplified procedures is to vest contracting officers with additional procedural discretion and flexibility, so that commercial acquisitions in this dollar range may be solicited, offered, evaluated, and awarded in a simplified manner that maximizes efficiency and economy and minimizes burden and administrative costs for both the Government and industry (10 U.S.C. 3205-3208 and chapter 241 and 41 U.S.C. 3305, 3306, and chapter 37, Awarding of Contracts.
( b ) When acquiring commercial products or commercial services using the procedures in this part, the requirements of part 12 apply subject to the order of precedence provided at 12.102(c). This includes use of the provisions and clauses in subpart 12.3.
( c ) Under 41 U.S.C. 1903, the simplified acquisition procedures authorized in this subpart may be used for acquisitions that do not exceed $15 million when— ( 1 ) The acquisition is for commercial products or commercial services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used in support of a contingency operation; to facilitate the defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to support a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster, or
( 2 ) The acquisition will be treated as an acquisition of commercial products or commercial services in accordance with 12.102(f)(1).
[80 FR 38311, July 2, 2015; 80 FR 38297, July 2, 2015; 84 FR 19837, May 6, 2019; 85 FR 62488, Oct. 2, 2020; 86 FR 61025, Nov. 4, 2021; 87 FR 73897, Dec. 1, 2022]