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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN TCI PACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON
FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         409,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,385,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        966,529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          629,739
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     688,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,385,614
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               252,395
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,994
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,751
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,583
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# U nitedStates C ou rt o f App eal s For th e Firs t C ircuit

No. 06-2151 VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant,

v . MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; STEPHEN L. DIAMOND, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Maine Public Utilities Commission; SHARON M. REISHUS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Maine Public Utilities Commission; KURT W. ADAMS, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Maine

Public Utilities Commission, Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued on September 6, 2007, is amended as follows: On pa g e 1 1 , l i n e 1 8 , r e p l a c e t h e w o r d s " p r e s e n t o n a l e g a l" with the words with "present a legal".
[No. 21618-3-II.

Division Two.

October 31, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gabriel Aleksandr Cheney, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 96-1-00141-3, George L. Wood, J., entered January 31, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Armstrong, JJ.
#### § 1.1390 When will modified requirements that we adopt or an exemption that we grant become effective?

Any modified requirements that FDA adopts or exemption that we grant will become effective on the date that notice of the modified requirements or exemption is published in the Federal Register *,* unless otherwise stated in the notice.
ALD

- 382 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 16

- 3092

___________ IN RE: MONTEZ M. BOWENS , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United Sta tes District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa . No. 2

- 14

- cv - 02689 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

August 18, 2016 Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

( F iled : August 22, 2016 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Montez Bowens has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the District Court to act on “pending motions.” For the reasons below, we will dismiss the petition as moot

. In May 2 014, Montez Bowens filed a civil rights complaint against several defendants . He subsequently amended the complaint. By order entered June 15, 2016,

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

the District Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by those defendants designated as “the Graterford de fendants.” Bowens filed a notice of appeal from that order. By order entered June 23, 2016, the District Court granted the summary judgment motion of the remaining defendants , Dr. Bratton and Dr. Martinez. Bowens has not filed an appeal from that order.
In his mandamus petition dated July 5, 2016, Bowens seeks an order directing the District Court to act upon what he believes are pending motion s . He asserts that the District Court dismissed his amended complaint without ruling on these motions. It
app ears that he is referring to his oppositions to the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. However, these filings were resolved when the District Court granted the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. In its orders, the District
Court noted that Bowen’s oppositions to the motions were before it

. That Bowen labeled his oppositions as “ opposition motions” did not require the District Court to explicitly deny them. 1 The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. S ee Sporck v. Peil , 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)

.

1 In his opposition “motions,” Bowen requested that the District Court deny the defendant’s motions. He did not request any additional relief.3

Because the District Court has resolved the motions for which Bowens seeks a ruling, there is no effective relief we can grant him, and his request is moot

. See In re Cantwell , 6 3 9 F. 2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1981) (“ [A]n appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur during the pendency of the appeal which prevent the appellate court
from granting any effective relief.” ) Accordingly, we will dismi s s the mandamus petition
as moot.
The HONORABLE STEPHEN M. REASONER, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by

designation.

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for 2

the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3500

___________

St. Paul Fire and Marine *

Insurance Company, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Pharmacists Mutual Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED]

Company, an Iowa corporation, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 13, 1997

 Filed: April 3, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and REASONER, District 1

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the summary judgment entered by the district

court dismissing St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company’s claim

2

against Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company for contribution to a

settlement.
-2-

Having considered the arguments and briefs of the parties and having

concluded than an extended opinion would have no precedential value in this

diversity case, we affirm the judgment on the basis of the district court’s

thorough, well-reasoned memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
D oc ket N o . FA A-2 0 1 3- 0 0 9 3 Co ntacts . Wi th wh o m o u tsi d e th e FA A h as thi s p ro posal bee n d i scu ssed ?
Editorial Note on Part 312
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 312.81 Scope. This section applies to new drug and biological products that are being studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating life-threatening or severely-debilitating diseases. ( a ) For purposes of this section, the term “life-threatening” means: ( 1 ) Diseases or conditions where the likelihood of death is high unless the course of the disease is interrupted; and
( 2 ) Diseases or conditions with potentially fatal outcomes, where the end point of clinical trial analysis is survival.
( b ) For purposes of this section, the term “severely debilitating” means diseases or conditions that cause major irreversible morbidity.
( c ) Sponsors are encouraged to consult with FDA on the applicability of these procedures to specific products.
[53 FR 41523, Oct. 21, 1988, as amended at 64 FR 401, Jan. 5, 1999]
Exhibit 21.1

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
                                               Jurisdiction     Percent Owned
Name of Subsidiary                           of Incorporation   by Registrant
------------------                           ----------------   -------------
<S>                                          <C>                <C>
Active
------

Nur Media Solution S.A.                           Belgium           100%

Nur Advanced Technologies (Europe) S.A.           Belgium           100%

Nur America Inc.                                 Delaware           100%

Nur Marketing and Communication GmbH              Germany            84%

Inactive
--------

Nur Hungaria KFT ("Nur Hungary") (1)              Hungary           100%

Good-Lux S.A.("Nur Luxembourg") (1)             Luxembourg          100%

M.B.T. (Nur) Industries Ltd.                      Israel            100%

Nur Print Technologies (1993) Ltd.                Israel            100%

N.A.T. Holdings and Investments (1997) Ltd.       Israel            100%

</TABLE>
-------------------

(1)  Represents the percentages of ownership of Nur Media Solutions S.A. in
     these subsidiaries.
38591.

#### HARPER v. JONES *et al.,*Executors.

Decided January 16, 1961.

*L. D. Skaggs,*for plaintiff in error.

*Erwin, Birchmore*&c *Epting, Howell C. Erwin¡ Jr.,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit to recover damages for timber cut and removed from the plaintiff’s land by the defendants. The defendants demurred generally to the petition on the ground that the petition showed on its face that the action was barred by the statute of limitation. The trial judge sustained the *41general demurrer and certain special demurrers and dismissed the petition. The exception is to that judgment.

The plaintiff’s amended petition discloses that the right of action in this case accrued in 1951 when the timber was cut and removed but that the suit was not filed until May 6, 1959. Whether the plaintiff’s action be construed as one seeking damages for trespass upon realty or damages for the conversion of personalty, the applicable period of limitation is four years. *Code*§§ 3-1001, 3-1003.

It is contended by the plaintiff, however, that the petition shows that the statute of limitation was tolled under *Code*§ 3-807 which provides, “If the defendant, or those under whom he claims, shall have been guilty of a fraud by which the plaintiff shall have been debarred or deterred from his action, the period of limitation shall run only from the time of the discovery of the fraud.”

A careful examination of the amended petition, however, shows that the plaintiff allegedly failed to file his suit within the four years after his right of action accrued only because one of the defendants told him about four years after the timber was cut that “he [the defendant] did not know exactly where the lines were on the property, but that he had a plat of the land on which the timber was cut and that said land was a part of the Jones estate and not part of the plaintiff’s.” The mere making of this statement, which is not alleged to be false, could in no way have constituted such fraud as to debar or deter the plaintiff from prosecuting his action. *Austin v. Raiford,*68 Ga. 201 (3a); *Printup v. Alexander & Wright,*69 Ga. 553; *Barrett v. Jackson,*44 Ga. App. 611 (3) (162 S. E. 308).

Other allegations of the petition, relied on by the plaintiff to show fraud on the part of the defendants, relate to events which transpired more than four years after the right of action accrued, and are therefore irrelevant and immaterial as to the issue of tolling the statute.

Accordingly, since the petition shows on its face that this action was brought more than four years after the right of action accrued, and since there are no specific allegations of actual fraud on the part of the defendants deterring and debarring the *42plaintiff from instituting the suit within the statutory period so as to toll the operation of the statute of limitation, the trial court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ general demurrer and dismissing the petition. *Warnock v. Warnock,*206 Ga. 548 (57 S. E. 2d 571).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
[LOGO OF BANK HAPOALIM]


                                                         As of November 15, 2003

Level 8 Systems, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Cary, NC  27511

     RE: TERM LOAN EXTENDED BY BANK HAPOALIM B.M. (THE "BANK") TO LEVEL 8
     SYSTEMS, INC. (THE "BORROWER") DATED MARCH 6, 2002 IN PRESENT
     OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF $1,971,000.00 (THE "LOAN")

Gentlemen:

This will confirm  that,  at the request of the  Borrower,  the Bank has agreed,
subject to the  conditions  set forth below,  to extend the maturity date of the
Loan from  November  15,  2003 to  November 8, 2004.  The  effectiveness  of the
extension of the maturity  date of the Loan is subject to the Bank's  receipt of
such  documentation  as it  may  request,  including,  but  not  limited  to the
following,  each in form and substance satisfactory to the Bank: (a) this Letter
Agreement  dated the date  hereof,  (b) a new  Promissory  Note in the amount of
$1,971,000.00  dated the date hereof  executed  by the  Borrower in favor of the
Bank in substitution of and replacement for the existing  Promissory Note in the
amount of  $3,000,000.00  by the  Borrower  in favor of the Bank dated  March 6,
2002, (c) a Letter of Undertaking  from Bank Hapoalim B.M. Rishon Le Zion Branch
in amount not less than $2,171,000.00,  (d) an opinion of Borrower's counsel and
(e) any other documents as the Bank may require.  The effectiveness of the terms
of this Letter  Agreement  is also  subject to  repayment by the Borrower to the
Bank in immediately available funds in lawful money of the United States of such
amount  necessary,  if any, to reduce the outstanding  balance under the Loan to
$1,971,000.00.  The  Borrower  shall  also pay the Bank a  documentation  fee of
$350.00.

Please indicate your acknowledgment of and agreement to the foregoing by signing
and  returning the enclosed copy of this letter to the attention of Maxine Levy,
Vice President.

                                                    Very truly yours,


Acknowledged and Agreed to                          BANK HAPOALIM B.M.

LEVEL 8 SYSTEMS, INC.                               By:
                                                       -------------------------
                                                    Title:
                                                          ----------------------
By:
   ------------------------
Title:                                              By:
      ---------------------                            -------------------------
                                                    Title:
By:                                                       ----------------------
   ------------------------
Title:
      ---------------------

NEW YORK BRANCHES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              1177 Avenue of the Americas New York NY 10036-2790 T.
                212 782 2000 F. 212 782 2222 www.hapoalimusa.com


                                      E-39
#### § 358.310 Ingrown toenail relief active ingredient.

The active ingredient of the product is sodium sulfide 1 percent in a gel vehicle. The gel vehicle is an aqueous, semisolid system with large organic molecules interpenetrated with a liquid.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Viatel, Inc.:

    We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
No. 333-15155 on Form S-8, in the registration statement No. 333-16671 on Form
S-8, in the registration statement No. 333-90257 on Form S-8, in the
registration statement No. 333-92235 on Form S-8, and in the registration
statement No. 333-92339 on Form S-8 of Viatel, Inc. of our report dated
March 1, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Viatel, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity (deficiency)
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1999, and the related schedule, which appears in the December 31,
1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Viatel, Inc.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
April 14, 2000
§ 343.13 Rheumatologic active ingredients. ( a ) Aspirin.
( b ) Buffered aspirin. Aspirin identified in paragraph (a) of this section may be buffered with any antacid ingredient(s) identified in § 331.11 of this chapter provided that the finished product contains at least 1.9 milliequivalents of acid-neutralizing capacity per 325 milligrams of aspirin as measured by the procedure provided in the United States Pharmacopeia 23/National Formulary 18.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officer ofAltris Software, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to his knowledge thatthe Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003(the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  This certification is provided solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Reportor “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

 
| Dated:                   | May 15, 2003 |   |
|--------------------------|--------------|--------|
|                     |         |   |
| /s/ John Low             |         |
| John Low                 |
| Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Altris Software,Inc. and will be retained by Altris Software, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 WFS FINANCIAL INC CERTIFICATION OF CFO In connection with the Annual Report of WFS Financial Inc (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
to the best of his knowledge and belief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. The foregoing Certification is furnished solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose. WFS FINANCIAL INC /s/ Mark K. OlsonMark K. Olson
Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 Date: March 11, 2005
§ 26.41 Exchange and endorsement of quality system evaluation reports. ( a ) Listed European Community (EC) conformity assessment bodies (CAB's) will provide FDA with reports of quality system evaluations, as follows: ( 1 ) For preapproval quality system evaluations, EC CAB's will provide full reports; and
( 2 ) For surveillance quality system evaluations, EC CAB's will provide abbreviated reports.
( b ) Listed U.S. CAB's will provide to the EC Notified Body of the manufacturer's choice: ( 1 ) Full reports of initial quality system evaluations;
( 2 ) Abbreviated reports of quality systems surveillance audits.
( c ) If the abbreviated reports do not provide sufficient information, the importing party may request additional clarification from the CAB.
( d ) Based on the determination of equivalence in light of the experience gained, the quality system evaluation reports prepared by the CAB's listed as equivalent will normally be endorsed by the importing party, except under specific and delineated circumstances. Examples of such circumstances include indications of material inconsistencies or inadequacies in a report, quality defects identified in postmarket surveillance or other specific evidence of serious concern in relation to product quality or consumer safety. In such cases, the importing party may request clarification from the exporting party which may lead to a request for reinspection. The parties will endeavor to respond to requests for clarification in a timely manner. Where divergence is not clarified in this process, the importing party may carry out the quality system evaluation.
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

    I, Keith A. Meister, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer) of American Property Investors, Inc., the General Partner of
American Real Estate Partners, L.P. (the 'Registrant'), certify that to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the American Real Estate Partners, L.P.
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 of the
Registrant (the 'Report'):

        (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
    Registrant.

                                                  /s/ KEITH A. MEISTER
                                           .....................................
                                                      KEITH A. MEISTER
                                           PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                           OF AMERICAN PROPERTY INVESTORS, INC.,
                                                   THE GENERAL PARTNER OF
                                            AMERICAN REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, L.P.

Date: November 14, 2003