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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         195,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  212,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               576,734
<PP&E>                                         196,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                 139,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 782,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          214,060
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       871,286
<OTHER-SE>                                   (354,762)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   782,586
<SALES>                                      1,440,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,440,738
<CGS>                                          773,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  665,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,052)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,159)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,159)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
# URIC:NAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0484 CLARK FORK COALITION,ROCK CREEK ALLIANCE,EARTHWORKS, AND MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER,

Petitioners and Appellees, 

# FILED MAY 1 5 2020 Bowen Greenw000 Clerk of Suprerne CourState of Mnntana v. ORDER MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION,and RC RESOURCES,INC.,

Respondents and Appellants. Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for oral argument before the Court sitting en banc and is hereby set for argument on Wednesday,July 15, 2020,at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom ofthe Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to M.R. App. P. 17(3), oral argument times in this cause number shall be forty (40) minutes for the Appellants and thirty (30) minutes for the Appellees. Counsel should be mindful ofthe provisions ofM.R.App.P. 17(6). The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Kathy Seeley, 1
- 1iy , trict Judge. DATED this 

### 1 6 Lif ofMay,2020. For the Court,

ChiefJustice 05/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0484
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District

Judge for the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 95-2837

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Joseph Michael Sazenski, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

__________

 Submitted: January 4, 1996

 Filed: January 24, 1996 __________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Michael Sazenski challenges the 135-month sentence

imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to

attempting to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We affirm.

Sazenski's written plea agreement specifically stated that

Sazenski would receive a two-level aggravating-role enhancement

under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The probation officer who prepared

Sazenski's presentence report, however, did not include the

enhancement, concluding that Sazenski and a co-defendant--who did

not receive the enhancement--had equal roles in the offense. The
-2-

government objected, citing the plea agreement. The district court

found that Sazenski actively led and directed the activities of two

couriers whom he employed to assist him in transporting drugs,

applied the enhancement, and sentenced Sazenski to 135 months

imprisonment and eight years supervised release.

We reject Sazenski's contention that the district court

clearly erred in finding that he had an aggravating role in the

offense. Sazenski waived his objection to the application of the

enhancement by approving the plea agreement "with full knowledge of

the potential penalties" and by accepting the benefits of the plea

agreement. See United States v. Fritsch, 891 F.2d 667, 668 (8th

Cir. 1989). We further reject Sazenski's contention that he should

not have received the enhancement because his co-defendant did not

receive the enhancement. "A defendant cannot rely upon his codefendant's sentence as a yardstick for his own," for "disparity

will always exist so long as sentences are based upon the specific

facts of each individual defendant's case." United States v.

Granados, 962 F.2d 767, 774 (8th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### F. C. Engle et al. *v.*The Boards of Commissioners of Defiance County et al.

Under tlie act of April 12,1871, relating to ditches (G8 Ohio D. 66), no appeal is allowed from the decision of the commissioners of two or more counties establishing a ditch which is partly located in their respective counties. Under section 22 of the act, the finding of a majority of the commissioners of each county, when in joint session, that the ditch is necessary, and conducive to public health, convenience, or welfare, is final.

Motion for leave to file petition in error to reverse the judgment of the District Court of Defiance county.

*S. T. Sutphen,*for the motion.

*W. G. Ilolgate,*contra.

By the Court.

Application was made by Frederick Fritz, one of the defendants in error, for the location and establishment of a ditch by the commissioners of the counties of Henry and Defiance, under the act of April 12,1871, relating to ditches. 68 Ohio L. 66. The proposed ditch being in both counties, the commissioners of each county, in pursuance of section 22 of the act, met in joint session and located and established the ditch. From the decision establishing the ditch, the plaintiffs in error, whose lands are in Defiance county, took an appeal to the Probate Court of that county. The appeal was sustained by the Probate Court, and on further proceedings the location of the ditch was denied, and the costs adjudged against the petitioner, Fritz. On error, the Court of Common Pleas reversed the proceedings of the Probate Court, on the ground that no appeal- was allowed in such ease. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed by the District Court.

"Wo see 'no error in these judgments. The act, under which those proceedings were had, authorizes no appeal from the decision of the commissioners of two or more *426counties locating and establishing a ditch which is partly in each of their respective counties. Under section 22 of the act, the finding of a majority of the commissioners of each county, when in joint session, that the ditch is necessary, and conducive to public health, convenience, or welfare, is final.

This construction is rendered necessary to avoid the evils that would result from allowing conflicting appeals. In this class of cases, the joint action of the several boards of commissioners, is equivalent to the finding of a jury in other cases as to the public character of the work.

*Leave refused.*
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 7 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       January 3, 2001.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, elected 
to the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Rules: Mr. Moakley, Mr. Frost of Texas, Mr. Hall of Ohio, and 
Ms. Slaughter.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: Rocio Ungaro

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Sunday, August 07, 2011 7:41:41 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Rocio Ungaro

8414 N Packwood Ave

Tampa, FL 33604
[No. 2491.]

#### Metzler et al. v. Crebbin.

Appellate Practice — Abstracts of Record — Pleading—Judgment.

An abstract of record which contains neither the pleadings nor judgment, nor anything from which a knowledge of the issues can be obtained, is meaningless and a judgment will not be reviewed upon such abstract but will be affirmed.

*Appeal from the District Court of Douglas County.*

Mr. Chas. H. Dyett, for appellants.

Mr. Harree M. PPumphreys, for appellee.

*405Thomson, P. J.

We have before ns a printed document labeled “Abstract of Record,” wbicb commences with a statement that tbis action wa,s brought to set aside a deficiency judgment rendered in a foreclosure proceeding against tbe appellants, on tbe ground of irregularity of service of summons in the proceeding, and on tbe ground of fraud, and that tbe answer denied generally tbe allegations of tbe complaint. Tbis is followed by wbat purports to be tbe testimony of certain witnesses, at tbe conclusion of wbicb we are informed that “tbe court rendered its findings in favor of tbe defendant and against the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment accordingly.” Except as recited above, the purported abstract contains no allusion to tbe pleadings or tbe judgment. It gives no bint which might warrant even a conjecture as to tbe nature of tbe supposed irregularity or the supposed fraud. Without a. knowledge of tbe issues, tbe testimony is unintelligible; and we are left in utter ignorance of wbat tbe court found or adjudged. Tbis so-called abstract of record is a totally meaningless document.

Let tbe judgment be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
No. 155.

#### Gideon *v.*Cochran, Corrections Director.

*Richard W. Ervin,*Attorney General of Florida, and *Bruce R. Jacob,*Assistant Attorney General, on the motion.

*Abe Fortas,*by appointment of the Court, 370 U. S. 932, and *Abe Krash*for petitioner, in opposition.

Certiorari, 370 U. S. 908, to the Supreme Court of Florida.

The motion of the respondent to strike portions of designation of record is denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                       INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                       -------------------------------

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Sistersville
Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of income, comprehensive income, and cash flows for the three-month
period then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical and
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 review, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying 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 as of March 31, 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated April 14, 2000, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

/s/ S. R. SNODGRASS, A.C.

Wheeling, West Virginia
August 1, 2000

S.R.Snodgrass, A.C.
980 National Road
Wheeling, WV  26003
Phone: 304-233-5030
Facsimile: 304-233-3062
......**~-** ---··· .... --···-··. ·-·- ·-------- -·· .. ·--··--

.. ·-----·**·-----~-----** ·--·-·----------· -·-·-·**-----~~~----** ---··-- -------·--·----------



# ____**;I~** Wf';+-;nj 

## ..i!"- \-e_sq_('d 

### s o Y\ 

## h o _Y..>

_ _ 

# ±9 5o

.**ec0Dt..:~:- -8~~**  

### n3 Ci. 

## <-c p y 

### o-f**-1::~~ .S~~~~·~**  .. 

## v·ii-'</ <(__i-Q..('k_s {'-ecotd

### ~f\**t:~** 

## __**:fc_llo~.u;.,j:** 

## ·rr_._?-::+-. No c._ A. 

### J3,J.<J>7-b**--~r-** 

### ...**~+.** No**c~ ~3/;L<r><o-£3,**  

## T



# r**~--~** 

# +.**~** o cA..**~** 3., 

### 2**~** 

### r
- (!;, 

### I r-. c+-, No 

### cR :) :, :J fo-b

. . ----- . - ·I

- 

# H**-~.Jf_~** Qy".e_ '-\ 

### h..c.. \.0**('~+ N~**  

### h.v s

... 

## w**~** 

### -? 

## 9, :1.**-~** 

### l - 0 

### g

__ _ _ _**w~~_)<?,?-3/-67** 

### .wR-**7~** 

### J-.3/-65

---------- ---- --- ......... - --1**WR_~_** 

### 7'6
1 

### ?..31-olo 

## L 

## CVo_JJ. /; /A.C?_ 

## i-o K.vto 10**+~J** 

## __**;~ _~c)**  

### hvLU**Y'Y\v~....c_~** 

### i 

# + Wo ..,.__/ 

## J**~' ~** **pu..rc~QS.,.L: Cop!~**  S :f2f'c>,.

### T~ Lo 

## lvf"+.**fh~** K.s 

# +or- yo'-"-r 

### 'f-,· ,'JnJ2.... , 

## .PhQ>Q._ Rg$poY1 c,)J 

### yoc..z.r 

### e czr- I:**a.~-+- Cc>,~**  v**~~/) C.--'L_~** 



### - RECEIVED IN

- - ·

# -~ e.spe <=- 

## r-PuJt '!**COUR~ ~-Fo** **~RI~INAL APP;A~_§__**  _

### J<~ 1\

### ~+h 7)

### o~ vt so VI



### ___ MAR 18 

### 2015**~ob~sc''"~ ~;+-**  

## ·rbc /f[?9'1'l



### Abel Acosta, Clerk 

### l 'J.C)_! 

## r Ftlfl't**~s** 

### 2**~**

### A-6~**~~ (~.**  '7?6{)1

. . '- (

..
EXHIBIT 99.1



                      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 Quarterly  Report of Unitrend, Inc.  (The
Company)  on  Form  10-QSB  for the  period ending June 30, 2005, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof  (the  Report),  I,  Conrad  A.H.  Jelinger, Chief  Executive
Officer  and  Interim  Chief  Financial  Officer  of Unitrend, Inc.,
certify, pursuant  to 18  U.S.C. ss. 1350,  as  adopted  pursuant to
ss. 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 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 of Unitrend, Inc.

                                 /s/  Conrad A.H. Jelinger
                                 -----------------------------
                                 Conrad A.H. Jelinger
August 12, 2005
                                 Chief Executive Officer, Interim
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 President
NO. SCPW-10-0000055

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Petitioner,

vs.

 THE HONORABLE KAREN S.S. AHN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I and

ROYNES JOSEPH DURAL, II, Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(S.P.P. No. 09-1-0015 (CR. NO. 02-1-2791))

ORDER

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, and Duffy, JJ., and Circuit

Judge Crandall, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and

Circuit Judge Lee, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner State of Hawaii's

petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner fails

to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. 

Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief. 

See HRS § 602-5(3) (Supp. 2009) ("The supreme court shall have

jurisdiction and power . . . to exercise original jurisdiction in

all questions arising under writs directed to courts of inferior

jurisdiction and returnable before the supreme court."); Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-10-0000055

17-NOV-2010

03:05 PM
relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not

intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the

lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in

lieu of normal appellate procedures.). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 17, 2010.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

/s/ Virginia L. Crandall

/s/ Randal K.O. Lee

2
#### Sheppard *v.*Mitchell.

Atkinson, J.

The allegations made in the petition setting forth equities; in favor of the plaintiff were denied by the answer of the defendant, and the evidence submitted upon the issue thus made was of such. *571character as to show no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction.

Argued October 25,

Decided November 15, 1907.

Petition for injunction. Befare Judge Littlejohn. Lee superior court. June 3, 1907.

*Blalock & Cobb, B. E. Lee,*and *Hollis Fort,*for plaintiff.

Q. *W. Warwick,*for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          26,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,125
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,807,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          876,489
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     930,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,807,058
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,711
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               164,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (146,313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (146,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (146,313)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (146,313)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (12)
        

</TABLE>
From: David Allison [mailto:drapilot@bellsouth.net] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 8:40 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Very bad ideas. Keep your hands off my 401k/403b. I do not need or want ANY mandatory 

guidance in what I chose to invest in. Period.
#### The Electrical Supply Company, Respondent, v. The Baxter Electric Light Company, Appellant.

Order reversed, and order opening judgment and allowing amendment of answer grauted, without costs of motion, or of appeal or of trial to either party.
EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF ZYGO CORPORATION (DELAWARE)

         Zygo Credit Corporation (Delaware)
         100% owned by Registrant

         Zygo International Sales Corporation (U.S. Virgin Islands)
         100% owned by Registrant

         Technical Instrument Company (California)
         100% owned by Registrant (effective as of August 8, 1996)

         Syncotec Neue Technologien und Instrumente GmbH
         100% owned by Technical Instrument Company (effective as of
         September 1, 1997)

         NexStar Corporation (Colorado)
         100% owned by Registrant (effective as of September 12, 1996)

         TechniStar Corporation (Delaware)
         25% owned by NexStar Corporation

         Sight Systems, Inc. (California)
         100% owned by Registrant (effective as of August 19, 1997)
From: Katherine Ratcliffe

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:59:30 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Katherine Ratcliffe

8621 58th Ave NW

Gig Harbor, WA 98332