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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      490
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,008
<PP&E>                                           1,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,426
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,085
<COMMON>                                           469
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,978
<SALES>                                            377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   410
<CGS>                                              395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,934
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,875)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.44)


</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDevelopment of the reentry flight dynamics simulator for evaluation of space shuttle orbiter entry systemsA nonlinear, six degree of freedom, digital computer simulation of a vehicle which has constant mass properties and whose attitudes are controlled by both aerodynamic surfaces and reaction control system thrusters was developed. A rotating, oblate Earth model was used to describe the gravitational forces which affect long duration Earth entry trajectories. The program is executed in a nonreal time mode or connected to a simulation cockpit to conduct piloted and autopilot studies. The program guidance and control software used by the space shuttle orbiter for its descent from approximately 121.9 km to touchdown on the runway.Document ID19800023921Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsRowell, L. F.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Powell, R. W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Stone, H. W., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1980Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberL-13662NASA-TP-1700Accession Number80N32429Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-63-13-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19800023921.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
#### Roberts et al. *v.*Wolfe.

[No. 20,623.

Filed June 23, 1905.]

1. Appeal and *Error.—Complaint.—Initial Attack.—Sufficiency.*—A complaint in three paragraphs, attacked for the first time on appeal, will withstand an assignment of error that it is insufficient, if one paragraph thereof is good, even though the verdict and judgment rest upon an insufficient paragraph, p. 199.

2. *Same.—Supreme Court Rules.—Bill of Exceptions.—Marginal*Notes.—Where appellant has failed to note on the margin of the bill of exceptions the name of each witness, and whether the examination is direct, cross or redirect, no question depending upon the evidence will receive consideration, p. 200.

Erom Superior Court of Yigo County; *8. O. Stimson,*Judge.

Action by Belle Wolfe against Joseph D. Eoberts and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Transferred from the Appellate Court under §133^ Burns 1901, Acts 1901, p. 590.

*Affirmed.*

*McNutt & McNutt*and *Taylor & Kisner,*for appellants.

*Henry, Grane & Miller*and *H. 8. Wallace,*for appellee.

Monks, C. J.

Appellee brought this action against appellants before a' justice of the peace, and recovered judgment. Appellants appealed to the court below, where a trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee.

1. The complaint, which is in three paragraphs, is assailed for the first time in this court by an assignment that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The first paragraph is for money had and received, and is clearly sufficient. As the error assigned calls in question the sufficiency of the complaint as a whole, and there is at least one good paragraph, the assignment must fail, even if the verdict and judgment rest upon an insufficient paragraph. *United States Express Co.*v. *Rawson*(1886), 106 Ind. 215, 219; *Louisville, etc., R. Co.*v. *Peck*(1884), 99 Ind. 68, 69, and cases cited.

*2002. It is assigned for error that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial. The causes for a new trial not waived require for their determination an examination of the evidence. Appellee insists that appellants, by their failure to comply with the rules of this court, have waived a determination of said questions. The name of each witness, and whether the examination is direct or cross or redirect, is not stated on each page of the bill of exceptions, as required by rule three of this court. For this reason, the questions depending for their determination upon said bill of exceptions will not be considered. Ewbank’s Manual, §119; *State*v. *Van Cleave*(1902), 157 Ind. 608; *May*v. *State*(1894), 140 Ind. 88, 94, 95; *Egan*v. *Ohio, etc., R. Co.*(1894), 138 Ind. 274; *State, ex rel.,*v. *Lankford*(1902), 158 Ind. 34-36; *Newman*v. *Newman*(1901), 26 Ind. App. 238, and cases cited; *Citizens St. R. Co.*v. *Damm*(1900), 25 Ind. App. 511, 520, 521, and cases cited; *Otis*v. *Weiss*(1899), 22 Ind. App. 161, 163; *Babcock v. Johnson*(1899), 22 Ind. App. 97, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 5, 2018

No. 04-17-00496-CR

Tracy Diane GRIER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B12462

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Initially, Appellant Tracy Diane Grier had court-appointed counsel on appeal. Later, 

after the trial court determined Appellant was not indigent, the trial court discharged appointed 

counsel, and Appellant is now representing herself on appeal. 

We granted Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file her brief, and we set her brief 

due on January 29, 2018. Before the due date, Appellant filed a ten-page, hand-written response 

which asks this court to reduce her sentence to time served, or to grant her other relief from her 

sentence. She asserts that the District Attorney’s office made errors in prosecuting her case and 

that her attorney provided ineffective assistance.

Although Appellant’s response asserts certain facts, it does not comply with Rule 38.1 of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief does 

not include the following:

• Identity of Parties and Counsel,

• Table of Contents,

• Index of Authorities,

• Statement of the Case,

• Any Statement Regarding Oral Argument,

• Issues Presented,
• Statement of Facts,

• Summary of the Argument, or

• Argument.

See id. The brief has these additional defects.

• No part of the brief contains any citations to the record. See id. R. 38.1(g) (“The 

statement [of facts] must be supported by record references.”); id. R. 38.1(i) (“The 

brief must contain . . . appropriate citations . . . to the record.”). 

• The brief asserts numerous facts—without citations to the record—but fails to present 

any legal arguments. See id. (“The brief must contain a clear and concise argument 

for the contentions made . . . .”). 

• The brief does not list a single authority. See id. (requiring “appropriate citations to 

authorities”). 

• The brief does not comply with the form requirements of Rule 9.4. See id. R. 9.4. 

We STRIKE Appellant’s brief and ORDER Appellant Tracy Diane Grier to file either a 

motion to dismiss or an amended brief within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of the date of this order. 

The amended brief must correct all of the violations listed above and fully comply with the 

applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. 

If Appellant fails to file a brief or motion as ordered, we will submit this appeal on the 

record alone and we will review the record solely for fundamental error. See Lott v. State, 874 

S.W.2d 687, 687–88 & n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of February, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 306

To modify the project for navigation, Jones Inlet, New York.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. KING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To modify the project for navigation, Jones Inlet, New York.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expedited Shoreline

5 Resources Improvement Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. JONES INLET, NEW YORK.

7 The project for navigation, Jones Inlet, New York,

8 is modified to direct the Secretary to place

9 noncontaminated dredged material on beach areas

10 downdrift from the federally maintained channel, at full

11 Federal expense, for the purpose of mitigating the inter12 ruption of littoral system natural processes caused by the
2

•HR 306 IH

1 jetty and continued dredging of the federally maintained

2 channel.

Æ
Searched for **http://www.bea.gov/international/fdius2007_final.htm?tabContainerMain=2**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.bea.gov/international/fdius2007_final.htm?tabContainerMain=2**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

               Each person  whose  signature  appears  below  hereby  authorizes
Richard M. Kahler, as attorney-in-fact,  to sign in his behalf, individually and
in each capacity stated below, and to file this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB and
all amendments and/or supplements to this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.


Signature                   Title                                 Date
---------                   -----                                 ----         
                                                              
/s/ Joshua Fong, O.D.       Chairman of the Board and Director    March 17, 1999
--------------------------                               
Joshua Fong, O.D.                                                 
                                                               
/s/ William. R. Henson      Director                              March 17, 1999
--------------------------                                     
William R. Henson                                              
                                                               
/s/ Dimitri V. Koroslev     Director                              March 17, 1999
--------------------------                                     
Dimitri V. Koroslev                                            
                                                               
/s/ William E. Peluso       Director                              March 17, 1999
--------------------------                                     
William E. Peluso                                              
                                                               
/s/ Oswald A. Rugaard       Director                              March 17, 1999
--------------------------                                     
Oswald A. Rugaard                                              
                                                               
/s/ Mark A. Wilton          Director                              March 17, 1999
--------------------------                                     
Mark A. Wilton                                                 
                                                               
/s/ Randall D. Greenfield   Chief Financial Officer (Principal    March 17, 1999
-------------------------
Randall D. Greenfield       Financial Officer and Principal
                            Accounting Officer) and Secretary
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.224 Expedited appeals. ( a ) *General rule.* ( 1 ) The agency must establish and maintain an expedited fair hearing process for individuals to request an expedited fair hearing, if the agency determines that the time otherwise permitted for a hearing under § 431.244(f)(1) could jeopardize the individual's life, health or ability to attain, maintain, or regain maximum function.
( 2 ) The agency must take final administrative action within the period of time permitted under § 431.244(f)(3) if the agency determines that the individual meets the criteria for an expedited fair hearing in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) *Notice.* The agency must notify the individual whether the request is granted or denied as expeditiously as possible. Such notice must be provided orally or through electronic means in accordance with § 435.918 of this chapter, if consistent with the individual's election under such section; if oral notice is provided, the agency must follow up with written notice, which may be through electronic means if consistent with the individual's election under § 435.918.
[81 FR 86449, Nov. 30, 2016]
§ 417.478 Requirements of other laws and regulations. The contract must provide that the HMO or CMP agrees to comply with— ( a ) The requirements for QIO review of services furnished to Medicare enrollees as set forth in subchapter D of this chapter;
( b ) Sections 1318(a) and (c) of the PHS Act, which pertain to disclosure of certain financial information;
( c ) Section 1301(c)(8) of the PHS Act, which relates to liability arrangements to protect enrollees of the HMO or CMP; and
( d ) The reporting requirements in § 417.126(a), which pertain to the monitoring of an HMO's or CMP's continued compliance.
( e ) ( 1 ) The prohibitions, procedures and requirements relating to payment to individuals and entities on the preclusion list, defined in § 422.2 of this chapter, apply to HMOs and CMPs that contract with CMS under section 1876 of the Act.
( 2 ) In applying the provisions of §§ 422.2, 422.222, and 422.224 of this chapter under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, references to part 422 of this chapter must be read as references to this part, and references to MA organizations as references to HMOs and CMPs.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985; 50 FR 20570, May 17, 1985, as amended at 56 FR 8853, Mar. 1, 1991; 58 FR 38079, 38082, July 15, 1993; 80 FR 80556, Nov. 15, 2016; 83 FR 16721, Apr. 16, 2018]
**EXHIBIT
        22**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul O.
        Richins, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
              the
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
        Paul O. Richins
 Paul
        O.
        Richins
 Principal
        Financial Officer
 March
        15,
        2007
  
 *A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
        document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
        that
        appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
        has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
No. 99-92.

#### Hollingsworth & Vose Co. *v.*Ruckstuhl.

Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.
#### § 423.2118 Obtaining evidence from the Council.

An enrollee may request and receive a copy of all or part of the record of the ALJ's or attorney adjudicator's action, including any index of the administrative record, documentary evidence, and a copy of the audio recording of the oral proceedings. However, the enrollee may be asked to pay the costs of providing these items. If an enrollee requests evidence from the Council and an opportunity to comment on that evidence, the time beginning with the Council's receipt of the request for evidence through the expiration of the time granted for the enrollee's response will not be counted toward the adjudication deadline.

[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5138, Jan. 17, 2017]
#### Ben W. HOY and Klean Maintenance Service, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. James POYNER, Appellee.

No. 74-515.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 31, 1974.

Hockett, Silver, Spalding & Lewis, Sarasota, for appellants.

Peter W. Martin, Nelson, Stinnett, Sur-fus, Payne, Hesse & Cyril, Sarasota, for appellee.

*307HOBSON, Judge.

Appellants appeal a final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict awarding Poyner compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $30,000 in a malicious prosecution action.

The record contains competent and substantial evidence to establish the liability of the appellants for both compensatory and punitive damages, and to justify the amount of the compensatory damages awarded.

Our concern is with the amount awarded for punitive damages. The record is devoid of any evidence tending to prove the financial worth of the appellants or their financial ability to pay an award of such damages.

The purpose of punitive damages is the punishment of each wrongdoer by exacting from his pocketbook a sum of money which, according to his financial ability, will hurt, but not bankrupt. The allowance of evidence of financial worth of the tortfeasors will make possible the attainment of the purpose sought to be accomplished. Lehman v. Spencer Ladd’s, Inc., Fla.1966, 182 So.2d 402; Richards Company v. Harrison, Fla.App.1st, 1972, 262 So.2d 258.

In order for the jury to fix intelligently the amount of punitive damages in line with Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.-12, especially in cases involving multiple defendants of different pecuniary circumstances, it is necessary for there to be adequate proofs of the defendants’ net worth. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675 v. Lassitter, Fla.App.4th 1974, 295 So.2d 634; Brock v. Maine, Fla.App.4th 1974, 293 So.2d 375; contra, Aaron v. Rinaldi, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 296 So.2d 632. See also Richards Company v. Harrison, *supra.*

Appellants contend that the assessed damages were excessive, and appel-lee contends that the award was justified. Yet, this court has not been furnished a basis upon which to make a determination of the issue. For this reason, we must reverse that portion of the final judgment awarding appellee punitive damages in the amount of $30,000.

We have considered the other points raised on appeal and find that appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error.

That portion of the final judgment awarding appellee compensatory damages is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial on the issue of the amount of punitive damages only.

Reversed in part; affirmed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
§ 426.488 Effect of a Board decision. ( a ) *The Board's decision upholds an ALJ decision that an LCD is valid or reverses an ALJ decision that an LCD is invalid.* If the Board's decision upholds the ALJ decision that an LCD is valid under the reasonableness standard or reverses an ALJ decision that an LCD is invalid, the contractor or CMS is not required to take any action.
( b ) *The Board's decision upholds an ALJ determination that the LCD is invalid.* If the Board's decision upholds an ALJ determination that the LCD is invalid, then the contractor, the M + C organization, or other Medicare managed care organization implements the decision as described in § 426.460(b).
( c ) *The Board's decision reverses a dismissal or an ALJ decision that the LCD is valid.* If the Board reverses an ALJ decision dismissing a complaint or holding that an LCD is valid without requiring discovery or the taking of evidence, the Board remands to the ALJ and the LCD review continues. If the Board reverses an ALJ decision holding that an LCD is valid that is reached after the ALJ has completed discovery and the taking of evidence, the Board may remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings, or the Board may find that the provision(s) of the LCD named in the complaint is (are) invalid under the reasonableness standard, and the contractor, the M + C organization, or other Medicare managed care organization provides the relief in § 426.460(b).