alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Automated Facilities Management Corporation

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02408

Honorable Joan H. Lefkow

IFS North America, Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, May 7, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Joan H. Lefkow: Status hearing set for 6/5/2012

at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice(mad, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-02408 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                             103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1709
<ALLOWANCES>                                       131
<INVENTORY>                                       4580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6392
<PP&E>                                            3896
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1064
<OTHER-SE>                                       (931)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7084
<SALES>                                           8628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8628
<CGS>                                             5794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  74
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3480)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3480)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)
        

</TABLE>
Login | Register

Rank By

Total Count

Rank By

Avg. Cost $/W

Rank By

Capacity MW

back to gallery

Home About Search Data Gallery My Account

Open PV State Rankings 

This visualization ranks states by the cost, count and capacity of their photovoltaic installs. 

Click one of the 'Rank By' buttons to sort by that column in the table. You can also click a 

state to find its row in the current ranking. 

Note that the state rankings are out of a total of 52 because the Open PV Project includes 

the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as 'states' to ensure these regions are 

represented in the rankings. 

1 to 99

100 to 499

500 to 999

1,000 to 2,999

3,000 to 9,999

10,000 +

No Data

Did you know? 

California ranks first among all states in number of solar PV systems 

installed with 145,635. The next closest state, New Jersey, has only 

18,350 installs. That's 127,285 installs less than California. 

Legend 

The Open PV Project 

Rank State Count Cost $/W Capacity (MW)

#1 CA 145635 7.08 2054.75

#2 AZ 20931 5.87 818.09

#3 NJ 18350 7.52 978.99

#4 MA 9802 6.10 244.90

#5 CT 7000 6.54 93.79

#6 NY 6954 7.43 131.08

#7 TX 4549 5.81 183.56

#8 PA 4417 6.34 129.88

#9 MD 3767 6.90 108.93

#10 CO 2584 5.81 130.32

#11 HI 2420 6.76 27.33

#12 OR 1946 5.73 38.51

#13 NM 1844 6.96 151.75

#14 DE 1687 7.73 58.38

#15 VT 1639 6.75 36.13

#16 NV 1518 6.96 214.46

#17 DC 1496 6.76 8.57

The Open PV Project - State Rankings Page 1 of 1

https://openpv.nrel.gov/rankings 5/29/2014
___________ No. 96-2058

___________ Dennis Lee, and all other * automobile insurance policy * holders/members of Arkansas * Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance * Company of Arkansas, Inc., and * Southern Farm Bureau Casualty * Insurance Company, * * Plaintiff/Appellant, * * Arkansas Farm Bureau Mutual * Insurance Company of Arkansas, * Inc., Members/Holders of Auto- * mobile Insurance Policies; * Southern Farm Bureau Casualty * Insurance Company, Members/ * Holders of Automobile Insurance * Policies, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * * Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation,* An Incorporated Entity or, * Alternatively, AR Farm Bureau * Federation, An Unincorporated * Association - Andrew Whisenhunt,* *

Defendant/Appellee. *

___________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the No. 96-2180 Western District of Arkansas.

___________ [UNPUBLISHED] Dennis Lee, and all other * automobile insurance policy * holders/members of Arkansas * Farm Bureau Insurance Company * of Arkansas, Inc., and Southern * Farm Bureau; * * Plaintiff/Appellee, * * Arkansas Farm Bureau Mutual * Insurance Company of Arkansas, * Inc., Members/Holders of Auto- * mobile Insurance Policies; *

### The HONORABLE JOHN B. JONES, United State s District Judge for 1 

### the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge 2 

### for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division. -2- Southern Farm Bureau Casualty * Insurance Company, Members/ * Holders of Automobile Insurance * Policies, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * * Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation,* An Incorporated Entity or, * Alternatively, AR Farm Bureau * Federation, An Unincorporated * Association - Andrew Whisenhunt,* *

Defendant/Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 15, 1997 Filed: February 6, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge. 1

___________ PER CURIAM. App ellantbrought this action with allegations Appellee committe d viola tions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Ac t (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a),(c), and (d) in the operation of the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation. The district court granted summary 2 judgment to Appellee. After a careful review of the record and th e parties’ briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district court wa s correct. Accordingly , we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The Cross-Appeal is dismissed as moot. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Protecting Students

**Overview**	Retaliatory acts, which may include giving students failing grades, preventing students from participating in school activities, and threatening expulsion against any individual who exercises his or her rights under Title IX, are considered to be discrimination and are unlawful. Recipients of federal funds are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by Title IX.

----

 

              - Laws
              - Case Resolutions
# C_2017010EN.01000101.xml

| 13.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 January 2017

(2017/C 10/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0679 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4342 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86843 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5090 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0742 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0625 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,15 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3765 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4913 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,0319 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4205 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3944 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2816 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4980 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5191 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 255,40 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,3476 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3621 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5365 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 150,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7607 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,939 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 63,3302 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,740 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3718 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,0700 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,5955 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0679

JPY

Japanese yen

121,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4342

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86843

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5090

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0742

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0625

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,15

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3765

RON

Romanian leu

4,4913

TRY

Turkish lira

4,0319

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4205

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3944

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2816

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4980

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5191

KRW

South Korean won

1 255,40

ZAR

South African rand

14,3476

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3621

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5365

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 150,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7607

PHP

Philippine peso

52,939

RUB

Russian rouble

63,3302

THB

Thai baht

37,740

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3718

MXN

Mexican peso

23,0700

INR

Indian rupee

72,5955

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Ilse Jorgensen, Respondent, v Arnold C. Jorgensen, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 25, 1978, which, *inter alia,*granted the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and complaint dismissed. In this marriage of almost 14 years, the evidence adduced at the trial failed to establish a course of conduct by the defendant husband against the plaintiff which endangered her physical or mental well-being as rendered it unsafe or improper for her to cohabit with him (see Domestic Relations Law, § 170, subd [1]; *Matter of Filippi v Filippi,*53 AD2d 658; *Johnson v Johnson,*36 NY2d 667). The course of conduct here found credible by the trial court included only one specific instance (in 1977) in which the defendant allegedly accused the plaintiff, in front of the children, of having committed an act of adultery (cf. *Hessen v Hessen,*33 NY2d 406); two instances (in 1975) in which the defendant allegedly taunted the plaintiff with his having committed adultery with a coemployee; one instance (in 1977) in which the defendant allegedly forced his affections upon the plaintiff; and conclusory allegations to the effect that the defendant had, on occasion, spoken of his and the plaintiff’s respective acts of alleged adultery in public to third persons. However, no independent evidence to establish this last fact was introduced at trial despite the fact that the plaintiff called two of the parties’ neighbors as witnesses on her direct case. As for the defendant, he denied plaintiff’s claim that he had forced his affections upon her but admitted that he had taunted her by claiming to have committed adultery with a coemployee. However, he denied the truth of these statements, asserting that he had made them in an effort to rekindle his wife’s affections. It is perhaps instructive to note that the plaintiff continued to share the same bedroom, but not the bed of the defendant, up to the date of the trial and that at no time did she either seek or receive medical attention for her physical, mental or emotional state as a result of her contact with the defendant. Under these circumstances, we believe that the evidence adduced was legally insufficient to establish cruel and inhuman treatment. Therefore, the judgment of divorce must be reversed and the complaint dismissed. As we have previously stated, "The statutory provision establishing cruel and inhuman treatment as a ground for divorce does not authorize [the] dissolution of a marriage for irreconcilable differences, incompatibility or irremedial differences. Nor is it a ground for divorce that two parties acquiesce in a sex-limited relationship (see *Hammer v Hammer,*34 NY2d 545)” *(Filippi v Filippi,*53 AD2d 658, 659, *supra).*Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
IHEs (as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that are public or private nonprofit IHEs, and public and private nonprofit organizations and agencies that partner with IHEs.

FIPSE Home
#### 30.202-3 Amendments and revisions.

See 48 CFR 9903.202-3.

[61 FR 18917, Apr. 29, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 40237, July 25, 1997; 85 FR 67614, Oct. 23, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD DAVID DAVAGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-41) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald David Davage, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gerald David Davage appeals the district court's order denyinghis motion for provision of a transcript. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Davage , No. CR-94-41 (D. Md. Nov . 4 & Dec. 24, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SUZY ELKINS, on behalf of       )

Herself and other similarly situated     )

    Plaintiff,     ) 1:12‐cv‐5617

      ) Judge Kennelly

v.         )

)   

MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.,    ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

    Defendant.     )   

   

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF NON‐OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER

Plaintiff hereby notifies the Court that she does not oppose Medco’s motion to transfer

this case to the Eastern District of Missouri.

         Respectfully submitted,

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Alexander H. Burke

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 

155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 729‐5288

(312) 729‐5289 (fax)

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com  

Of counsel:

Robert T. Healey, pro hac vice

Healey Law, LLC

640 Cepi, Suite A

Chesterfield, MO 63005

direct:  (636) 536‐5175

fax: (636) 590‐2882

bob@healeylawllc.com  

Edward Broderick

Anthony Paronich

Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 29 Filed: 10/29/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:143
Broderick Law, P.C.

125 Summer St., Suite 1030

Boston, MA 02110

(508) 221‐1510

(617) 951‐3954

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The forgoing document was served upon counsel of record through the ECF system for

the Northern District of Illinois.

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 29 Filed: 10/29/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:144
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1870

H. C. THORNE, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HUNTINGTON POLICE DEPT.; W. H. (SKIP) HOLBROOK; PATROLMAN J. 

R. GOODMAN; PATROLMAN ANDRE JACKSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-06280)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hillery C. Thorne, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

H. C. Thorne, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

Thorne that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Thorne

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                          COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


Year ended December 31,
In millions, except per share amounts                 1996     1995      1994
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary earnings per share:

Shares used in computing earnings per share:
     Weighted average number of shares outstanding   269.7     264.0     257.5
     Incremental shares attributed 
           to outstanding options                      8.6       9.6      11.1
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                     278.3     273.6     268.6
                                                  =============================

Earnings:
     Net income                                   $  1,313   $   789   $   867 
                                                  -----------------------------

Earnings per common and common equivalent share   $   4.72   $  2.88   $  3.23
                                                  =============================


Earnings per share - assuming full dilution:

Shares used in computing earnings per share:
     Weighted average number of shares outstanding   269.7     264.0     257.5
     Incremental shares attributed to 
           outstanding options                        11.7      11.0      12.6
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                     281.4     275.0     270.1
                                                  =============================

Earnings:
     Net income                                   $  1,313   $   789   $   867
                                                  =============================

Earnings per common and common equivalent share   $   4.66   $  2.87   $  3.21
                                                  =============================
### and Heat Pumps as Discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

. 2:: ,, ' : ' .

g *

;i. t - ''

### Definitions and Scope of Coverage Heating-Only Heat Pumps DOE proposes to exclude heating-only heat pumps.

:C Computer Room AirConditioners : : :. : ,,' : !s

: . :: ::..: . DOE proposes to exclude computer room air conditioners. Equipment with aVariable-Speed Drive DOE proposes that small commercial, air-cooled packageAC's and HP's having cooling capacity lessthan 65,000 Btu/h have to meet efficiencystandards that accountfor part load performance.

## Test Procedures Test Procedures the Department Intends toAdopt ARI Standard 210/240-94 

### * ARI Standard 340/360-93 ARI Standard 320-98 ARI Standard 310/380-93

### Test Procedures Minimum External Static Pressure 

### The proposed minimum static pressure requirements are unchanged. They are prescribed inthetest procedures DOE is proposing to adopt. Water-Source HeatPumps 

### DOE proposes to adoptARI 320-98.

^ *:-3;YiZ" ^^ *i; /.;S.5^TM/ :
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF

FLOW INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION



|                                                    |  |                                                             
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                                          |  | State or other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
|Avure Technologies AB                               |  | Sweden                                                      
|Avure Technologies Incorporated                     |  | Washington                                                  
|CIS Acquisition Corporation                         |  | Michigan                                                    
|Flow Asia Corporation                               |  | Taiwan                                                      
|Flow Asia International Corporation                 |  | Mauritius                                                   
|Flow Autoclave Systems, Inc.                        |  | Delaware                                                    
|Flow Automation Systems Corporation                 |  | Ontario                                                     
|Flow China                                          |  | China                                                       
|Flow Europe, GmbH                                   |  | Germany                                                     
|Foracon Europe Manufacturing GmbH & CO.KG           |  | Germany                                                     
|Flow Holdings GmbH (SAGL) Limited Liability Company |  | Switzerland                                                 
|Flow Holdings FPS AB                                |  | Sweden                                                      
|Flow Iberica, S.R.L.                                |  | Spain                                                       
|Flow Italia, S.R.L.                                 |  | Italy                                                       
|Flow Japan Corporation                              |  | Japan                                                       
|Flow Korea                                          |  | Korea                                                       
|Flow Latino Americana Comercio Ltda.                |  | Brazil, South America                                       
|Flow Surface Prep/Europe, SAGL                      |  | Switzerland                                                 
|Flow U.K., Ltd.                                     |  | England                                                     
|Flow Waterjet Florida Corporation                   |  | Florida                                                     
|Robotic Simulations Limited                         |  | United Kingdom                                              
|Flow Washington Corporation                         |  | Washington