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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT APRIL 30, 1997, AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                      13,642,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,521,000<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 13,859,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,113,000
<PP&E>                                      13,386,000<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              86,058,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,925,000
<BONDS>                                     61,899,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,000<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,875,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                86,058,000
<SALES>                                     85,693,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                       33,406,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               82,985,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,000<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,289,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,603,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,612,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,612,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Accounts receivable net of allowance for doubtful accounts.
<F2>Property, plant and equipment net of accumulated depreciation.
<F3>As of November 4, 1996, both Class A and Class B common stock were reclassified
as one class of Common Stock.
<F4>Includes $9,000 related to reorganization items.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The Sanchez *&*Haya Co., Respondent, *v.*Lottie Hirsch, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

April, 1899.)

1. Municipal Court of the city of New York — Denial, of. or information sufficient to- form a belief, inadmissible.

A denial of any knowledge or information sufficient to form as to the truth of the allegations of the complaint is a form . not permissible in the Municipal Court of the city of New

*2.*Defense of another action pending.

A defense that another action is pending between the -sam - SUIB8C[ for the same cause cannot be stricken out as insufficient.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the M Court, first district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in 1 the plaintiff.

*203Jacob Brenner, for appellant.

Caesar Simis, for respondent.

MacLean, J.

Bor answer the defendant alleged, first, that she had ' no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the complaint, excepting she admitted she had not paid the sum demanded, and, secondly, she alleged for a separate and distinct defense, that at the time of the commencement of the action, and for a long time prior thereto, there was pending in the Supreme Court of the state of New York an action brought by the same plaintiff against her on the same alleged cause of action set forth in the complaint, which action is still undetermined’ and is now af issue. The court struck out the answer *“*because the denials therein are stated to be on information and belief, and on the insufficiency of the second defense.” This was proper as to the first defense, for an answer may not be interposed in the Municipal Court in that form. Code Civ. Pro., § 2938; Consol. Act,.§ 1347; Lambert v. Hoffman, 20 Misc. Rep. 331, 332. The second defense should not have been stricken out, as it would be good, if proven.- Code Civ. Pro., § 498. The judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed, with costs to the appellant.

Fbeedman-, P. J., and Leventbitt, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 11.503 Responsibilities regarding non-practitioner assistance.

With respect to a non-practitioner assistant employed or retained by or associated with a practitioner:

(a) A practitioner who is a partner, and a practitioner who individually or together with other practitioners possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the practitioner;

(b) A practitioner having direct supervisory authority over the non-practitioner assistant shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the practitioner; and

(c) A practitioner shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a practitioner if:

(1) The practitioner orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) The practitioner is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PASSION MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55316

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07354-BRO-RZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 8, 2018**

Before: FISHER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SHEA, District Judge.***

Passion Moore appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for

FILED

JUN 15 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** Pursuant to the parties’ request, this case was submitted for decision

on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f).

*** The Honorable Edward F. Shea, Senior United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

1
reconsideration.1

 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When a district

court denies a motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), we

review for an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d

1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

In denying Ms. Moore’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, the district

court judge wrote a thorough and well-reasoned decision that addressed all the

issues raised to date. Prior to summary judgment, all of Ms. Moore’s arguments

relating to an improperly enhanced bail were limited to supporting her racialanimus claims. Ms. Moore did not assert an Eighth Amendment excessive-bail

claim before the district court on summary judgment, and she therefore waived that

issue. See Intercontinental Travel Mktg., Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 45 F.3d 1278, 1286 (9th

Cir. 1994) (“Raising an issue for the first time in a motion to reconsider is not

considered adequate preservation of the issue at a summary judgment stage.”). As

such, the district court properly declined to consider the merits of Ms. Moore’s

untimely excessive-bail arguments.

1 Ms. Moore filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, citing

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e). The district court correctly construed

Ms. Moore’s motion as a Rule 60(b) motion because she had not filed it within 28

days of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring a motion to alter or amend a

judgment to be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment). Accordingly, we do

not review the underlying judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Fiester v.

Turner, 783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that an untimely motion does

not suspend time to appeal).

2
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ms. Moore’s

motion because she failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b); Fuller v. MG Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth

grounds for relief under Rule 60).

Appellees’ request for judicial notice, filed October 7, 2015 (Docket Entry

No. 21), is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

3
#### § 17.626 Definitions.

For the definitions that apply to §§ 17.625 through 17.636, see § 17.601.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.32

                                    AMENDMENT

         This Amendment to Consulting and Marketing License Agreement is entered
into as of the 18th day of June, 2003 by and between Mark Neuhaus (the
"Consultant") and DNAPrint genomics, Inc. (the "Company").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the parties hereto are parties to a Consulting and Marketing
License Agreement dated on or about November 8, 2001 (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to certain modifications of the
Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to memorialize the modifications in this
Amendment.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

         1.       Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall
have the meanings given to those terms in the Agreement.

         2.       The term of the Agreement and the term of the options
associated therewith are hereby amended to extend such dates through November 8,
2004.

         3.       Except as explicitly modified herein, the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written.

                                          DNAPrint genomics, Inc.



                                          By:
                                             ----------------------------------



                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Mark Neuhaus
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE 00 0 7 8A2

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.112 Contents of petition for cancellation.

(a) The petition for cancellation must set forth a short and plain statement showing why the petitioner believes he, she or it is or will be damaged by the registration, state the ground for cancellation, and indicate, to the best of petitioner's knowledge, the name and address, and a current email address(es), of the current owner of the registration. ESTTA requires the petitioner to select relevant grounds for petition to cancel. The required accompanying statement supports and explains the grounds.

(b) When appropriate, petitions for cancellation of different registrations owned by the same party may be joined in a consolidated petition for cancellation. The required fee must be included for each party joined as a petitioner for each class sought to be cancelled in each registration against which the petition for cancellation has been filed.

[81 FR 69974, Oct. 7, 2016]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
§ 512.280 RO Model Medicare program waivers. ( a ) *General.* The Secretary may waive certain requirements of title XVIII of the Act as necessary solely for purposes of testing of the RO Model. Such waivers apply only to the participants in the RO Model.
( b ) *Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program.* CMS waives the application of the Hospital OQR Program 2.0 percentage point reduction under section 1833(t)(17) of the Act for only those Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APCs) that include only RO Model-specific HCPCS codes during the Model performance period.
( c ) *Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).* CMS waives the requirement under section 1848(q)(6)(E) of the Act and § 414.1405(e) of this chapter to apply the MIPS payment adjustment factor, and, as applicable, the additional MIPS payment adjustment factor (collectively referred to as the MIPS payment adjustment factors) to the TC of RO Model payments to the extent that the MIPS payment adjustment factors would otherwise apply to the TC of RO Model payments.
( d ) *APM Incentive Payment.* CMS waives the requirements of § 414.1450(b) of this chapter such that technical component payment amounts under the RO Model shall not be considered in calculation of the aggregate payment amount for covered professional services as defined in section 1848(k)(3)(A) of the Act for the APM Incentive Payment made under § 414.1450(b)(1) of this chapter.
( e ) *PFS Relativity Adjuster.* CMS waives the requirement to apply the PFS Relativity Adjuster to RO Model-specific APCs for RO participants that are non-excepted off-campus provider-based departments (PBDs) identified by section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74), which amended section 1833(t)(1)(B)(v) and added paragraph (t)(21) to the Social Security Act.
( f ) *General payment waivers.* CMS waives the following sections of the Act solely for the purposes of testing the RO Model: ( 1 ) 1833(t)(1)(A).
( 2 ) 1833(t)(16)(D).
( 3 ) 1848(a)(1).
( 4 ) [Reserved].
( 5 ) 1869 claims appeals procedures.
[85 FR 61362, Sept. 29, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 63997, Nov. 16, 2021]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 11.31 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.363 Fee address for maintenance fee purposes.

(a) All notices, receipts, refunds, and other communications relating to payment or refund of maintenance fees will be directed to the correspondence address used during prosecution of the application as indicated in § 1.33(a) unless:

(1) A fee address for purposes of payment of maintenance fees is set forth when submitting the issue fee, or

(2) A change in the correspondence address for all purposes is filed after payment of the issue fee, or

(3) A fee address or a change in the “fee address” is filed for purposes of receiving notices, receipts and other correspondence relating to the payment of maintenance fees after the payment of the issue fee, in which instance, the latest such address will be used.

(b) An assignment of a patent application or patent does not result in a change of the “correspondence address” or “fee address” for maintenance fee purposes.

(c) A fee address must be an address associated with a Customer Number.

[49 FR 34725, Aug. 31, 1984, as amended at 69 FR 29878, May 26, 2004]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
** **

** **

 

 

 

 

**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ParkwayProperties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, J. Mitchell Collins, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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 results of operations ofthe Company.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                /s/J. Mitchell Collins                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                J.Mitchell Collins (*) 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                November4, 2009 

 

 

*    A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParkway Properties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

                                                                                                                  

----