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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE JUNE 30, 1999 REPORT FILED ON
FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,163,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,759,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                   200,125
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,975,580
<PP&E>                                       9,626,742
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,529,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,932,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,467,025
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,045
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,995,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,932,633
<SALES>                                      5,039,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,099,217
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,610,754
<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>                               (6,511,537)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)


</TABLE>
STIPULATION FOR ORDER OF 

NATURALIZATION - 1 

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 

615 2nd Ave, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 957-8611 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

MIKHAIL STEPCHUK, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. C06-570RSL 

 

 ORDER REGARDING 

 NATURALIZATION OF PLAINTIFF 

 MIKHAIL STEPCHUK 

 

This Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties regarding the naturalization 

application of Plaintiff Mikhail Stepchuk, A71 282 430, finds that Plaintiff Mikhail Stepchuk meets 

all the requirements for citizenship and ORDERS the United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Service to naturalize Mr. Stepchuk. 

Dated this 21st day of June, 2006. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

EMPLOYEE PAINTERS TRUST HEALTH

& WELFARE FUND, et al,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

BENSON DRYWALL, INC., et al,

 Defendant.

 C05-2040 RSL

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C05-2040 RSL and

bear the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 27th day of January, 2006

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-02040-RSL Document 8 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POWERTEL, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         234,189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         579,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                (228,130)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,341,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,192
<BONDS>                                        975,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                           314
<OTHER-SE>                                    (197,609)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,341,879
<SALES>                                         17,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               330,558
<CGS>                                           77,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  392,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (147,450)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (147,450)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (154,762)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (5.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.07)


</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 2 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 3 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 4 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 5 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 6 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 7 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 8 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 9 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 10 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 11 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 12 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 13 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 14 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 15 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 16 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 17 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 18 of 19
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 157-1 Filed 05/29/12 Page 19 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

)

) NO. CR06-157MJP

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

)

HENRY ROSENAU )

)

)

 Defendant. ) )

It is the ORDER of the Court that the jury in this case be committed to the custody of a

duly sworn bailiff or bailiffs; and

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk, U.S. District Court, pay for the meals of said

jurors at the expense of the United States Courts.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2012. 

AMarsha J. Pechman

 United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 153 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 1
No. 61605.

#### Bruno Scheidt, Inc., and Neesen Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 310154-K and 314272-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar in all material respects *466to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1862), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 55006.

#### Fenwick Textiles, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 146147-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
AGREED ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL 

DATE AND EXTENDING DEADLINE 

FOR FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS - 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE THEILER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CR05-5856 

) 

vs. ) AGREED ORDER 

) CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND 

PATRICIA A. DUNN, ) EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR 

 ) FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS 

Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

THIS MATTER having come on before the Court on the agreed motion of the Defendant, 

PATRICIA A. DUNN, and the United States of America for an order continuing the trial date 

and extending the deadline for filing pretrial motions; the Court finding that this case is now 

scheduled for trial on June 26, 2006, and that the deadline for filing Defendant's pretrial motions 

is February 8, 2006; the Court finding that good cause exists to continue the trial date and to 

extend the pretrial motion deadline; the Court finding that such a continuance is agreed to by the 

government; and the Court further finding that the ends of justice served by continuing the trial 

date outweighs the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial; it is therefore 

ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions 

and to continue the trial date herein is hereby GRANTED; and, it is further 

Case 3:05-cr-05856-KLS Document 23 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 2
AGREED ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL 

DATE AND EXTENDING DEADLINE 

FOR FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS - 2

ORDERED that the new deadline for filing the Defendant's pretrial motions shall be the 

26th day of July, 2006; and, it is further 

ORDERED that the new trial date shall be the 28th day of August, 2006; and, it is further 

ORDERED that the period of delay between June 26, 2006, and August 28, 2006, shall be 

excluded in computing the time within which the trial must commence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3161. 

DONE IN OPEN COURT this 22nd day of June, 2006. 

s/ Mary Alice Theiler 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented by: Approved for Entry: 

WILLIAM R. MICHELMAN, INC., P.S. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

s/William R. Michelman s/Cpt. Kieran O’Shea 

_________________________________ __________________________________ 

William R. Michelman, WSBA #6803 By: Cpt. Kieran O’Shea 

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 3:05-cr-05856-KLS Document 23 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 2
#### James J. Forsythe, III, Respondent, v Town of Tuxedo et al., Appellants.

[632 NYS2d 638]

—In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Barone, J.), dated May 5, 1994, as denied, in part, the defendants’ motion to dismiss stated portions of the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross application to amend his notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof that denied the branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as is based on events that allegedly occurred on March 2, 1992, and that granted the plaintiff’s cross application to amend his notice of claim and substituting therefor provisions denying the plaintiff’s cross application and granting the branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as is based on events that allegedly occurred on March 2, 1992; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff alleges that on March 2, 1992, and March 7, 1992, the defendant police officers unlawfully arrested, ha*641rassed, and assaulted him. The plaintiff’s notice of claim, which was filed on June 2, 1992, includes only the events that allegedly occurred on March 7,1992. The complaint, however, which was served on or about May 27,1993, seeks to recover damages based on the events that allegedly occurred on both dates.

The defendants moved to dismiss stated portions of the complaint, *inter alia,*on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to serve a timely notice of claim with regard to the events of March 2, 1992. The Supreme Court granted the motion only to the extent of dismissing the cause of action to recover punitive damages against the municipal defendants and granted the plaintiff leave to amend his notice of claim.

We conclude that the Supreme Court erred by denying the branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as is based on events that allegedly occurred on March 2, 1992, and by allowing the plaintiff to amend his notice of claim to include those alleged events. Recovery based on the alleged events of March 2, 1992, is time barred *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]), and General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) does not permit amendments to the notice of claim that are of a substantive nature *(see, e.g., Demorcy v City of New York,*137 AD2d 650, 651).

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 11

Timothy A. Ross 
1726 Cole Blvd. Building 22; Suite 130 
Golden, CO 80401 e-mail address:
     tross@agapito.comPhone (business hrs):
     (303) 271-3750
  CONSENT OF AUTHOR  TO:
     United States Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC)
  I, Timothy A. Ross, PE, SME Registered Member, do hereby consent to the filing, with the regulatory authorities referred to above, of the technical report titled, Technical Report Update,of the Boleo Project located in Santa Rosalia, Baja California Sur, Mexico and dated March 2, 2010 (the Technical Report) and any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the Annual Report on Form 40-F for Baja Mining Corp., and the documents incorporated therein by reference, and in the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (333-165352) and to the use of my name therein. In addition, I do hereby consent that any extracts from, or a summary of, the Technical Report may be filed with any stock exchange, any other regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes, including electronic publication in the publicly accessible company files on their websites. Dated this 29thday of March, 2010  /s/Timothy RossTimothy A. Ross


---
MOORE
& ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED


ACCOUNTANTS AND
ADVISORS


PCAOB
REGISTERED













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of Buyonate, Inc., of our
report dated February 10, 2009 on our audit of the financial statements of
Buyonate, Inc. as of December 31, 2008, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31,
2008 and inception on July 9, 2007 through December 31, 2008, and the reference
to us under the caption “Experts.”








/s/ Moore & Associates,
Chartered


Moore
& Associates Chartered


Las
Vegas, Nevada


March 3,
2009











6490 West Desert Inn Rd, Las
Vegas, NV 89146 (702)253-7499 Fax
(702)253-7501
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 19

- 1874

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff, Appellee ,

v.

PUERTO RICO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ,
Defendant, Third

- Party Plaintiff, Appellant ,

v.

BECKMAN COULTER, INC.; SYSTEM ENGINEERING LABS, INC.; COULTER RE A GENTS, INC; SOLAR MAT OF PUERTO RICO COMPANY, INC.; PUERTO RICO HOUSING DEPARTMENT ; PREMIUM FRUIT COMPANY, INC.; PUERTO RICO BEVERAGE, INC.; EIG AGUA PURA DE PUERTO RICO, INC.; JUAN OROZCO LTD., INC.; CATPI, INC.; ORLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; MUNICIPALITY OF MAUNABO; SUNOCO CARIBBEAN, INC.; INSURER NUMBERS ONE

- TWELVE,

Third

- Party Defendants

.

ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court, issued on November 17, 2021, is amended as follows:

On page 14, line 17, replace "2020" with "2019" and

"entered" with "endorsed."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         410,227
<SECURITIES>                                   118,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                  304,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,561
<INVENTORY>                                    145,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,146,860
<PP&E>                                         511,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 258,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,617,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          360,770
<BONDS>                                        109,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,989
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,144,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,617,408
<SALES>                                      1,550,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,550,084
<CGS>                                          795,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  795,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               196,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (143,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (167,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (167,004)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)
        

</TABLE>
Case No. 7,616.

#### In re KASSON.

[4 Law Rep. 489.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

April, 1842.

Bankruptcy — Wearing Apparel — Property op Wife.

1. Articles of jewelry belonging to. a bankrupt. do not come under the description of wearing apparel, and if not set apart by the assignee, must be surrendered to him.

2. Articles of a similar nature, belonging to the wife of a bankrupt, if belonging to her be-fore her marriage, do not vest in the assignee— or if presented to her since, and they are such ns are suitable to her condition and circumstances in life, they may likewise be retained by her.

3. Whether they are suitable or not. is a question of fact, to be determined by evidence before a commissioner, on a reference upon exceptions taken to the decision of the assignee.

fin the matter of Chester S. Kasson, a bankrupt.]

[Before BETTS. District Judge.]

[Nowhere more fully reported; opinion not now accessible.]
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 234

To honor Stuart Balderson.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 21, 1998

Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. LOTT, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. BYRD, and Mr.

WARNER) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To honor Stuart Balderson.

1 Resolved, That Stuart Balderson is named Financial

2 Clerk Emeritus of the United States Senate.

3 SEC. 2. That rule XXIII is amended by adding after

4 ‘‘Parliamentarian Emeritus’’ the following: ‘‘and the Fi5 nancial Clerk Emeritus’’.

Æ
Exhibit 23.2

February 24,
2011

Consent of John T. Boyd Company

We hereby consent to the use by Cloud Peak Energy Inc. (the "Company") and Cloud Peak Energy Resources LLC ("CPER") in
connection with their respective annual reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 ("Form 10-K"), and any amendments thereto, of information
contained in our report dated January 21, 2011, addressed to the Company, relating to certain coal reserves and resources information for the Company's Powder River Basin properties including
setting forth the estimates of the Company's coal reserves in the Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to John T. Boyd Company in the filing and any amendments
thereto.

JOHN T. BOYD COMPANY/s/ RONALD L. LEWIS Ronald L. Lewis
Managing Director and COO


---



QuickLinks
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

WILLIAM GARY FUGITT,,

Defendant. 

CASE NO. CR05-5896RBL

 

 ORDER CONTINUING 

 TRIAL DATE

On October 5, 2006, counsel for defendant was allowed to withdraw and new counsel was

appointed on October 6, 2006. Mr. Williams has orally acknowledged, on the record, that a

continuance of the trial would happen due to the late substitution of counsel,. An executed

speedy trial waiver shall be filed with the court as soon as practicable.. In order to allow new

counsel the time to prepare the October 16, 2006 trial date is stricken. The Trial Date is NOW

SET for JANUARY 22, 2006.

In view of the foregoing, the court finds and rules as follows:

1. Failure to grant a continuance in this matter would deny the defense the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Title 18

U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

2. The ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Title 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A). The period of delay

resulting from this continuance from October 16, 2006 to January 22, 2007 is excluded for

Case 3:05-cr-05896-RBL Document 31 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER -2

speedy trial computation purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) as this is a

reasonable period of delay.

ACCORDINGLY:

The Jury Trial is CONTINUED to Monday, JANUARY 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

The Motions Cutoff date is extended to DECEMBER 4, 2006

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of October , 2006 .

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER -2

Case 3:05-cr-05896-RBL Document 31 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 2