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


<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000875579
<NAME>                         Spectrum Pharmaceutical Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                   US Dollars

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                              APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      0
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    20000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            288750
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                           6911
<OTHER-SE>                                                      (275661)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      20000
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      0
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     33750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (33750)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (33750)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (33750)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.01)



</TABLE>
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEANNA M. OXFORD,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5309

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office alleging

that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, MICHAEL DION ;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, JEROME KUH ;

The Court having advised the defendant of the allegations in the Petition(s) filed by the U.S. Probation

Office; the defendant having been advised of the maximum potential sanction if the allegation(s) is/are

substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged violation(s); 

The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Honorable J.K.ARNOLD.

Date: NOVEMBER 21, 2007

Time: 2:00 P.M.

( X ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

( ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. 

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,

the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

November 14, 2007.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold________________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05309-JKA Document 32 Filed 11/14/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 63412.

protests 143434-K/1752, etc. (Chicago).

#### International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States,

Donlon, Judge:

These protests, consolidated for trial, involve Greek olives in brine entered at Chicago and assessed with duty at 30 cents per gallon under paragraph 744 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as ripe olives. Plaintiff claims that the olives in brine are green, not ripe, and that they should be dutiable under paragraph 744 at 20 cents per gallon.-

At trial in Chicago, plaintiff introduced the testimony of two witnesses who testified that they were familiar with the olives covered by the import entries, and that they had examined the olives and found them *similar in color*to the olives of *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 1917. One witness described the color as “different gradations of color running from possibly pinkish color to a brown color.” The record in *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States, supra,*has been incorporated in this record.

In *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States, supra,*Greek olives; In brine (Salona) and slashed olives in brine, bought and sold in the trade as Kalamata olives, both types being red and reddish brown to dark brown, or reddish or *359pinkish, in color, and *eoncededly immature,*were held dutiable as green olives. The key to that decision was not the color of particular olives, but whether they were mature or immature. We said, in our opinion: “It seems clear, from the data that was before it in the tariff summaries, that Congress had in mind, in using the terms here litigated, immature olives as green olives and mature olives as ripe olives. We so hold.”

Plaintiff has not proven that this merchandise was immature, like the olives of the *MoscaMades*ease. Plaintiff has proven only the similarity as to color, which is not the decisive factor.

The record, therefore, fails to show that the merchandise of these protests is *prima facie*the same, in the sole material respect, as the merchandise of the incorporated ease, *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States, supra.*

The protests are overruled. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
AMENDMENT
                                     to the
                Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999
                                     between
                Larry Fleming and Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc.


         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of
this 15th day of December, 1999, by and between Larry Fleming (the "Employee")
and Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc. ("Eagle").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, Employee and Eagle are parties to that certain Employment
Agreement executed September 16, 1999 (the "Agreement").

         WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement effective
December 15, 1999 to take into account the resolutions adopted by Eagle's Board
of Directors at its special meeting on December 15, 1999.


         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements
hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
parties agree as follows:

         1. Section 3.b Annual Bonus of the Agreement shall be changed in its
entirety to read as follows:

         "The Employee and Eagle acknowledge that they are entering into this
         Agreement upon the consummation of Eagle's acquisition of Pacific
         Western Extruded Plastics Company ("PW Pipe"), and that the Employee is
         a former employee of PW Pipe. As such, for calendar year 1999 under the
         term of this Agreement, the Employee shall be entitled to a bonus equal
         to the bonus to which he would have been entitled under PW Pipe's bonus
         plan for the remainder of calendar year 1999, which shall be payable at
         such time and under such schedule as set forth under PW Pipe's bonus
         plan. For subsequent calendar years during the term of this Agreement,
         the Employee shall be entitled to participate in the Company's
         Performance Bonus Plan. PW Pipe's Performance Unit Payment incentive
         program ("PUP") has been terminated and nothing contained herein shall
         adversely impact the Employee's rights under the PUP that accrued prior
         to September 16, 1999."

         2. Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to
Employment Agreement effective as of the date first written above.

EAGLE PACIFICS INDUSTRIES, INC.



By:  /s/ William H. Spell                 /s/ Larry Fleming
Its:  Chief Executive Officer             Larry Fleming
No. 60590.

Suit 4883.

#### F. L. Kraemer & Co. and General Motors Corp. Truck & Coach Div. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1772 affirmed January 9, 1957. C. A. D. 635.
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILL BAILEY,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5173RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR December 29th, 2006 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR

3, and MJR 4. 

FACTS AND DISCUSSION

Mr. Scott litigates under close judicial scrutiny as a result of past abusive practices. Some of the

constraints placed on Mr. Scott are contained in the case management order entered in this action as (Dkt.

# 14).

In the case before the court today the original complaint was deficient as it contained no

statement of the court’s jurisdiction and no request for relief (Dkt. # 13). Plaintiff was ordered to

file an amended complaint that cured these defects but to name no new parties (Dkt. # 44). To the

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 65 Filed 12/05/06 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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

contrary, on October 17th, 2006 plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming three new defendants

(Dkt. # 53). Plaintiff was originally given until October 8, 2006 to file an amended complaint (Dkt. #

44). That deadline was extended until December 1st, 2006 (Dkt. # 59). The case was stayed and

plaintiff instructed that if a proper amended complaint was not filed the court would recommend this

action be dismissed (Dkt. # 59). Plaintiff has not complied with the court’s orders. 

Plaintiff has instead appealed the courts’ refusal to accept a non conforming amended

complaint (Dkt. # 58). That appeal has been denied and the deadline for filing a proper amended

complaint has passed. The court now recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders. A proposed order

accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. 

Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is

directed to set the matter for consideration on December 29, 2006, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 5th day of December 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 65 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 18, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.226 Pension Entitlements** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Before the First Division,

January 14, 1954

No. 57766.

petition 7113-R (New York).

#### Chase Equipment Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The petition was dismissed for lack of prosecution
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Daniel Mingdong WuName:
    Daniel Mingdong WuTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 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.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Nugent Engine Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Micheal P. Nugent, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(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 the Company.



|                            | 
|--------------------------- | 
|/s/ Micheal P. Nugent       | 
|Micheal P. Nugent          
|Principal Financial Officer
|April 13, 2009
**Exhibit 31.1: Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**I, Bryan Calder, Executive Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of:Merrill Auto Trust Securitization 2005-1Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading, as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; andThe reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:Title:U.S. Bank National AssociationBy: 1.2.3.4.5.By: /s/ Bryan Calder                            Name: Bryan CalderExecutive Vice PresidentDate:March 30, 2006                                Merrill Lynch Bank USA, as Administrator                                            Capital One Auto Finance, Inc., as ServicerCapital One Auto Finance, Inc. as successor in interest to Onyx Acceptance Corporation, as ServicerFord Motor Credit Company, as ServicerSystems & Services Technologies, Inc., as Servicer
JUAN AQUINO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3067

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 20, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Kevin J. Carroll, Judge.

Juan Aquino, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILL BAILEY,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5173RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DEFAULT

NOTED FOR September 1st, 2006 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR

3, and MJR 4. On July 7th, 2006, Defendant filed an answer and notice of appearance. (Dkt. # 21 and

22). Five days later, on July 12th, 2006, the court received a motion for default. The motion for

default was signed by plaintiff on July 11th, 2006. (Dkt. # 23).

As an answer had been filed prior to plaintiff bringing his motion. The motion does not warrant

any further consideration. The motion for default and the answer may have crossed in the mail, and the

court does not imply plaintiff’s motion was filed in bad faith. A proposed order accompanies this Report

and Recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 37 Filed 08/03/06 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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. 

Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is

directed to set the matter for consideration on September 1st, 2006, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 37 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

June 14, 1967

No. P67/192.

#### ACEC Electric Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 66/14386 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of sewing machine motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *ACEC Electric Corp.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 138, C.D. 2563), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

June 4, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00044

- CV

TITLE SOURCE, INC., Appellant

v.

HOUSECANARY, INC ., formerly known as Canary Analytics, Inc., Appellee s

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI06300 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed by May 10, 2019. Appellant’s first unopposed motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to June 10, 2019

. Appellant has filed a second unopposed motion for extension of time to file the brief until July 10, 2019, for a total extension of sixty (60) days. The motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed by July 10, 2019. Appellant is advised that addition al requests for

extension of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 4th day of June, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
‘UNDTED STATES ENVRONMENTAL PROTECTON AGENCY REGON ll 1650 Arch Street PhHad&pha, PennsyNania 19103-2029



### SEP 111 2011

Mr. Au Mirzakhalili, P.E. Director, Division ofAir Quality Delaware Department ofNatural Resources and Environmental Control 655 South Bay Road, Suite 5N Dover, Delaware 19901

Dear Mr. Mirzakhalili:

By letter dated July 11, 2011 with enclosure, Delaware Department ofNatural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Region III (EPA) amissing ozone data completeness package for the Brandywine ambient air

ozone monitoring site (AIRS ID# 10-003-1010) in accordance withthe regulatory requirements of40 CFR Part 50 Appendix I. 2.3(b)

—National Primary and SecondaryAmbientAir Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix I. 2.3(b) requires:

“....When computing whetherthe minimum data completeness requirements have been met, meteorological or ambient data maybe sufficientto demonstrate that meteorological conditions on missing days were not conducive to concentrations above the level ofthe standard. Missing days assumed less than the level ofthe standard are counted forthe purpose ofmeeting the data completeness requirement, subjectto the approval ofthe appropriate Regional Administrator.”

The DNREC missing ozone datapackage listed certain days in 2009 and 2010 when no
ozone data was collected at the Brandywine site. However, even thoughno data was collected, documentation and analysis provided by DNRECjustified these days should be counted for data completeness requirements. DNREC provided strong statistical correlations between the Brandywine site and ncarby ozone stations, as well as, observed meteorological conditions that

were not conducive to ozone formation tojustify missing ozone data days would not have exceeded the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of0.08 parts per million. Based on our review, EPA hereby approves DNREC’s request to allow missing ambient air ozone concentrations forthe requested days in 2009 and 2010 be counted when calculating yearly data completeness requirements ofthe CFR:

Printedon 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100% post-consumerfiber andprocess chlorinefree. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474Dates in 2009 Day Count 5/14/09 1 6/23/09 1 7/3/09—7/4/09 2 7/23/09 1 8/6/09

— 8/7/09 2 8/13/09 1 8/28/09—8/29/09 2 8/31/09—9/1/09 2 10/7/09 1 10/9/09 1 10/21/09 1 TOTAL 15 Dates in 2010 Day Count 5/30/10—5/31/10 2 6/14/10 1 7/25/10—7/27/10 3 7/29/10—7/30/10 2

8/1/10—8/3/10 3 8/7/10—8/9/10 3 8/12/10—8/16/10 5 TOTAL 19

Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. DianaEsher, Director, Air Protection Division, at (215) 814-2706.

cc: Mr. Ron Amirikian, Department ofAir Quality Mr. Joe Martini, Department ofAir Quality Ms. Betsy Frey, Department ofAir Quality Sincerely,

Regional Admini