alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1






                                                                      EXHIBIT 13

INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Essef Corporation
Chardon, Ohio


We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Essef Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Company") as of June 30, 1998, and
the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month
and nine-month periods ended June 30, 1998 and 1997, and their cash flows for
the nine-month periods ended June 30, 1998 and 1997. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures
to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial
and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit
conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to such condensed consolidated financial statements for them
to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of the Company as of September 30,
1997, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in
our report dated November 19, 1997, we expressed an unqualified opinion on
those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set
forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
July 17, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000814070
<NAME> DRY DAIRY INTERNATIONAL INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,712
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,807
<PP&E>                                         567,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 597,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          882,340
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,657,893
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,992,298)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   597,935
<SALES>                                        601,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               642,818
<CGS>                                          377,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  551,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (81,997)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (33,031)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (400,575)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (400,575)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1993
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1994
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,400
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 6 MONTHS ENDING JUNE
27, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM 10Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 27, 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000813856
<NAME> ??
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                           4,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,262
<PP&E>                                         291,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                  94,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 331,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,340
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,804
<OTHER-SE>                                    (35,830)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   331,317
<SALES>                                        274,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,573
<CGS>                                           72,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  272,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,618)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       294
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,912)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,912)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4189]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XU61


Marine Mammals; File No. 15153

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice; issuance of permit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  Notice is hereby given that Dolphin Quest Hawaii, 69-425 
Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, HI 96738 has been issued a permit to 
import two bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) for public display.

ADDRESSES:  The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376; and
    Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, 
Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808) 944-2200; fax (808) 973-2941.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jennifer Skidmore or Kristy Beard, 
(301) 713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 2, 2009, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (74 FR 63120) that a request for a public display 
permit to import two male bottlenose dolphins from Dolphin Quest in 
Hamilton, HM FX, Bermuda to Dolphin Quest Hawaii, Waikoloa, HI, had 
been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit 
has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the regulations 
governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).
    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the 
activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to 
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: February 23, 2010.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-4189 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
39154.

#### RENDER v. JONES.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. Where, in a suit to recover property damages allegedly sustained as the result of a collision *808between a motorcycle belonging to and operated by the plaintiff and the defendant’s automobile, the defendant sought to elicit from the plaintiff on cross-examination parol testimony that the plaintiff had been paid for his damages by an insurance company, such evidence, without more, was inadmissible and was properly excluded. *Barrett v. Western & Atlantic R. Co.,*144 Ga. 47 (85 SE 1016). Special grounds 1 through 4 of the motion for a new trial complaining of the refusal of the court to permit the defendant to elicit such testimony from the plaintiff do not show harmful or reversible error.

2. One of the special grounds of the motion assigns error on the ground that the court refused to permit the defendant to elicit parol testimony to the effect that the plaintiff had assigned his cause of action to an insurance company in exchange for its payment of his damages. Any assignment of the plaintiff’s claim to an insurance company, to be valid, would have to be in writing, and the writing itself would be the best evidence of such an assignment. Consequently, an affirmative answer by the plaintiff, to the effect that he had assigned his claim would have been a legal conclusion and, not being the highest and best evidence, would have been insufficient standing alone to have entitled the defendant to a nonsuit, “still, since the information sought was such as lay peculiarly within the knowledge of the plaintiff, the court should have allowed the defendant, on cross-examination, to develop tentatively the information sought, in order that the defendant might, if he could, legally prove the writing thus ascertained to be in existence.” *Lamon v. Perry,*33 Ga. App. 248, 251 (125 SE 907). It was not essential that the defendant, in order to ascertain whether an assignment had been made, serve the plaintiff with a notice to produce or that he use other discovery procedures since these procedures are merely cumulative of other remedies available to a party for the purposes of discovery. The refusal of the judge to permit the line of questioning, as complained of in special ground 5 of the motion, unduly restricted the defendant’s right of cross-examination of the plaintiff, and was harmful and reversible error.

3. The final special ground complains of the exclusion from the evidence by the court of a letter allegedly written to the de*809fendant by a third party who was not a witness in the case and so far as appears from the record had no connection with the case. Insofar as the plaintiff was concerned, the contents of this letter were purely hearsay and it was not admissible for any purpose.

Decided November 17, 1961

Rehearing denied November 30, 1961.

*Saul Blau,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lipshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Eberhardt and Custer, JJ., concur.*
§ 640.32 Collection of source material. ( a ) Whole Blood must be collected, transported, and stored as prescribed in § 640.4. When whole blood is intended for Plasma, Fresh Frozen Plasma, and Liquid Plasma, until the plasma is removed, the whole blood must be maintained at a temperature between 1 and 6 °C or as specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system approved for such use by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluations and Research. Whole blood intended for Platelet Rich Plasma must be maintained as prescribed in § 640.24 until the plasma is removed. The red blood cells must be placed in storage at a temperature between 1 and 6 °C immediately after the plasma is separated.
( b ) Plasma obtained by plasmapheresis shall be collected as prescribed in § 640.64 (except that paragraph (c)(3) of § 640.64 shall not apply), and § 640.65.
[42 FR 59878, Nov. 22, 1977, as amended at 45 FR 27927, Apr. 25, 1980; 50 FR 4139, Jan. 29, 1985; 64 FR 45372, Aug. 19, 1999; 72 FR 45888, Aug. 16, 2007; 80 FR 29905, May 22, 2015]
FoodborneDisease OutbreakInvestigation

EPIDEMIOLOGIC CASE STUDY

April 2000

U. S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Infectious Diseases

Epidemiology Program Office

Public Health Practice Program Office

Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Student's Version

A Multistate Outbreak

of E. coli O157:H7 Infection
#### The Eastern Electric Construction Company *v.*Thomas F. Morrissey

Baldwin, O’Sullivan, Wynne, Daly and Phillips, Js.

Argued June 9

decided June 27, 1955

*Gregory G. Willis,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

No appearance for the defendant (appellee).

Pee Cueiam.

On September 29, 1952, the defendant entered into a contract of employment with the plaintiff which provided that, for one year after the termination of his employment for any cause, he would not directly or indirectly, within the city of Bridgeport or within a radius of twenty miles there*743from, engage in, or be employed by, any business in competition with the plaintiff. The plaintiff discharged the defendant for good cause on October 9, 1953. When this action was brought in November, 1953, and when the plaintiff’s application for an injunction was denied by the court on February 23, 1954, the defendant was in the employ of the County Electric Company, Inc., of Bridgeport, a competitor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has appealed. It claims errors in the finding and in the conclusions of the court. While its claims appear to have merit, they present purely academic questions. The period of one year after the termination of the defendant’s employment with the plaintiff has long since passed. “It is a well-settled general rule that the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.” *Reynolds*v. *Vroom,*130 Conn. 512, 515, 36 A.2d 22; *State ex rel. Foote*v. *Bartholomew,*106 Conn. 698, 701, 138 A. 787; see Reply of the Judges, 33 Conn. 586; 5 C.J.S. 36. The plaintiff states that it has identical contracts with other employees and that a determination of this case will furnish guidance with respect to these contracts. No controversy, however, has yet arisen concerning them, and the parties to them are not parties to this litigation. The case of *H. O. Canfield Co.*v. *United Construction Workers,*136 Conn. 293, 70 A.2d 547, is distinguishable on its facts.

The appeal is dismissed.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCognitive Communications and Networking Technology Infusion Study ReportAs the envisioned next-generation SCaN Network transitions into an end-to-end “system of systems” with new enabling capabilities, it is anticipated that the introduction of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and other cognitive strategies into the network infrastructure will result in increased mission science return, improved resource efficiencies, and increased autonomy and reliability. This enhanced set of cognitive capabilities will be implemented via a “space cloud” concept to achieve a service-oriented architecture with distributed cognition, de-centralized routing, and shared, on-orbit data processing. The enabling cognitive communications and networking capabilities that may facilitate the desired network enhancements are identified in this document, and the associated enablers of these capabilities, such as technologies and standards, are described in detail.Document ID20190011723Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKnoblock, Eric J.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 8, 2019Publication DateMay 1, 2019Subject CategoryCybernetics, Artificial Intelligence And RoboticsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2019-220193E-19695Funding Number(s)WBS: 613673.02.04.03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Technical ReviewSingle ExpertAvailable DownloadsNameType20190011723.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DARCY PASCHALL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50502 

D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00200-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Darcy Paschall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

six-month custodial sentence and 51-month term of supervision imposed upon 

revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and we affirm. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 3 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-50502 

Paschall contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

respond to her nonfrivolous argument in favor of leniency. We review for plain 

error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court 

considered Paschall’s argument and adequately explained its reasons for imposing 

the sentence selected. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).

Paschall also contends that the 51-month term of supervised release is 

substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s willingness to terminate 

supervision in two years if Paschall remains violation-free. The district court did 

not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 

term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Paschall’s history of drug and alcohol abuse. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
§ 582.5628 Potassium glycerophosphate. ( a ) *Product.* Potassium glycerophosphate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.