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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF PERCON INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH
FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS IN THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               1,287
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                           135
<INVENTORY>                                          4,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    10,395
<PP&E>                                               4,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      15,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,020
<BONDS>                                                873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             8,844
<OTHER-SE>                                           1,734<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        15,034
<SALES>                                              6,033
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     6,033
<CGS>                                                2,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,040
<INCOME-TAX>                                           676
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    676
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.17
<FN>
<F1> Represents retained earnings of $2,003 and cumulative translation
     adjustment of ($269).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 231 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 231

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the 
Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 1999

   Mr. Paul submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the 
Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of 
                           the United States.

Whereas the ratification process and subsequent legality of the 1977 treaty 
        between the United States and the Republic of Panama relating to the 
        transfer of the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone has been called 
        into question;
Whereas the Panama Canal was built with United States money at a cost of 
        approximately $430 million, and another $450 million is spent annually 
        on maintenance and operations; and
Whereas more than 5,000 lives were lost during the American era of construction 
        of the Panama Canal: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal is and ought 
to remain U.S. property, and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered 
to be the sovereign territory of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
No. P68/10.

protest 65/15936 (Los Angeles).

#### Cal. Floral Mfg. Company *v.*United States,

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of rice paper similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Floral Arts Studios*and *Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 43, C.D. 2359), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-91,902-03

EX P ARTE DERWIN ALP HONSO RIDDICK, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 067663-A IN THE 397TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM G RAYSON COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of evading arr est and drug delivery and sentenc ed to imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk f

orwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that he is being d e n ie d p r e - sentenc e time cre dit awa rded on the judgme nt. The trial court finds that it has alre ady awa rded the time cre dit in question. Nonethele ss, Applicant

asser ts he is not rec eiving the time cre dit from p ri s o n officia ls. The habea s rec ord contains two judgme nts listi ng different periods of pre- sentenc e confine ment. I t is not clea r whether prison officia ls rec eived the judgme nt to which the trial court ref ers in i t s fi ndings and whether prison officia ls are pr operly

apply ing the pre- sentenc e conf inement cr edits listed there.2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts tha t, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. The trial court shall order the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice’s Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel to ob t ai n a response from a person with knowledg e of rele vant fac ts. I n developing the

rec ord, the trial c ourt may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall make findings of fac t and c o n cl usions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transc ripts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Mar ch 31, 2021 Do not publish
<PAGE>   1
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-56033) of Petegra Dental Group, Inc. of our
report dated May 20, 1999 relating to the financial statements, which appears
in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.

                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
April 3, 1956

No. 59831.—Suit 4848.

#### United States *v.*Kenneth Kittleson and E. W. Rollow.

C. A. D. 605.
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 JAMES L. VONASCH

 Attorney at Law

 200 Maynard Building

 119 First Avenue So.

 Seattle, Washington 98104

 (206) 682-1016

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE (CR06-165 RSM) - 1

Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-0165 RSM

 Plaintiff, )

 v. ) ORDER ON JOINT MOTION

) TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

RAYMOND HOENE, )

)

 Defendant. )

______________________________)

This matter came before the Court on the joint motion of the parties for a

continuance of the trial date in this matter, currently set for September 11, 2006. Upon

consideration of the parties’ motion, the Court finds that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161

(h)(8)(A), the ends of justice served by continuing the trial date to October 10, 2006,

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial as has been

asserted in the parties motion; and that the parties have demonstrated as required by 18

U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) that failure to grant the motion would deny counsel for the

defense reasonable time necessary for effective representation, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence

WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that trial in this matter is continued until

October 10, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the purpose of computing the time

Case 2:06-cr-00165-RSM Document 25 Filed 09/08/06 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 JAMES L. VONASCH

 Attorney at Law

 200 Maynard Building

 119 First Avenue So.

 Seattle, Washington 98104

 (206) 682-1016

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE (CR06-165 RSM) - 2

limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161-3174, the period of delay

from September 11, 2006, up to and including October 10, 2006, is excludable time

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A).

DATED this 8th day of September, 2006.

ARICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Presented by:

__s/James L. Vonasch________

 James L. Vonasch

 WSBA #2353

 Attorney for Defendant Hoene

Case 2:06-cr-00165-RSM Document 25 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 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- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CURTIS THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT O’TOOLE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-2064JLR

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on a report and recommendation of the

Honorable Monica J. Benton, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. # 75) addressing

Defendant Seattle Police Officer Randall Higa’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #

43), Plaintiff Curtis Thompson’s motions to compel (Dkt ## 49, 50), and Mr.

Thompson’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt. # 54). Also before the court

are Mr. Thompson’s objections to the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 76), and the

parties’ pleadings and exhibits. 

Consistent with Judge Benton’s recommendations, the court DENIES Mr.

Thompson’s motions to compel (Dkt. ## 49, 53). 

At this time, the court declines to adopt the recommendations of Judge Benton

concerning Officer Higa’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 43), and Mr.

Thompson’s motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. # 54). In his objections to the report

and recommendation, Mr. Thompson raises new factual allegations relating to the

incident at issue. Mr. Thompson contends that he was “‘away from any victim or officer’

Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 83 Filed 01/23/07 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

and had to be ‘pointed out’ and not ‘resisting or fleeing’ when I was ‘tackled from behind

and struck in the head.’” See Objections at 1. In light of these new factual allegations,

the court does not accept or reject Judge Benton’s recommendations concerning the

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 54) and motion for leave to amend (Dkt. # 54). 

The court returns the matter to Judge Benton to recommend a disposition. 

The court cautions Mr. Thompson that in the future the court will not consider

factual allegations raised for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation. 

Such factual allegations need to be included in the initial pleadings so that the Judge

hearing the matter is presented with the full factual record. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2007.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 83 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 53341.

protests 139334-K, etc. (New York).

#### American-Foreign Steamship Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JACQUES M. SUTTON,

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-626M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Date of Detention Hearing: March 2, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant has a significant criminal background history.

(2) Defendant has a past and present history of serious substance-abuse problems.

(3) Defendant has been charged with felon in possession of a firearm, a serious and

critical offense.

(4) Defendant has twelve (12) prior revocations of probation, which reflect an

unwillingness or inability to comply with the terms of supervision imposed.

Case 2:05-mj-00626-MJB Document 8 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(5) Defendant has a total of six previous failures to appear.

(6) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings and that will

address the danger to other persons or the community.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-mj-00626-MJB Document 8 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2
n ~ — i2~i$'0O0ii-cfi

To Tti£ HD^ABii "TupftCS of 5act, Couar:

h)0WComes Mtowmh Mteu*nr.£x/-r*£ fC8oc/£ Sr<m>

LOM&L WSJ*Pto>m>-T4£ frank T& G&rccrt

THPrT AWl/Arc CDtulff? USA *k$%*J AT*P

f^otofitttoZ*AJ7
(\W£LL(WT 2E&d1~ST$ ThlftfUEBZ PQooZV&h A Ca>/

•OP TUP f)W€HATB t-EC&Rp X^tJ~Tt4F5> CASE, ORTti&T

1~tf& CDU£T &>^/WW5 17/£ (ApcrrtQ to TtiBTmt

doctor ~To P-aouj (TifL^tet f±-Copy of Y(4Ef

^••BCcXZX*, AVD^ag-_ot/4^. Q.^Jk.ep As T4P £h*tar

'"-^••X-jJuijjSSij

Tm •» to imr^H rycr a- co?y orris &*«***

l&rei> '&£wu? Qrorm r++e jAm. dav 0f,t/aMmM^
Case 2:06-cv-00699-RSL Document 16 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00699-RSL Document 16 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00699-RSL Document 16 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00699-RSL Document 16 Filed 08/30/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00699-RSL Document 16 Filed 08/30/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00699-RSL Document 16 Filed 08/30/06 Page 6 of 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TECNOL
MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC. 10Q FILING FOR FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-1-1997
<CASH>                                       7,698,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               26,032,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,414,000
<INVENTORY>                                 31,875,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            69,864,851
<PP&E>                                      76,379,974
<DEPRECIATION>                              26,356,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             165,397,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,598,753
<BONDS>                                      7,462,035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,136
<OTHER-SE>                                 132,345,720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               165,397,243
<SALES>                                     37,310,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,310,507
<CGS>                                       20,728,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,728,710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             108,946
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,423,795
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,499,789
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,924,006
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,924,006
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25<F1>
<FN>
<F1>PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE ARE NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
B O A R D OF G O V E R N O R S 

OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SY5TEM

WASHINGTON, D .C. 2 0 5 5 1

A D D R E S S O FFIC IA L CORRESPONDENCE November 16, 2018 TO THE BOARD

Mr. Joel Kent Mathiesen

983 39th Avenue West

West Fargo, North Dakota 58078

Dear Mr. Mathiesen:

The General Counsel, acting pursuant to delegated authority, and after 

consultation with the Director of the Division of Supervision and Regulation, has 

approved your request pursuant to section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act1 to 

become an institution-affiliated party of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 

Company (“State Farm”), Bloomington, Illinois, a savings and loan holding company 

(“SLHC”). This approval is limited to your being an institution-affiliated party of State 

Farm, including by working for State Farm or working for an independently owned 

agency that sells State Farm insurance products and products for State Farm’s wholly 

owned subsidiary, State Farm Bank, f.s.b. (“State Farm Bank”), Bloomington, Illinois. If 

you seek to work for another SLHC or bank holding company (“BHC”), or to work for an 

independently owned agency that sells products for another SLHC or BHC, you must 

obtain the Board’s approval prior to working for such SLHC, BHC, or agency.

1 12 U.S.C. § 1829.

This action is based on all the facts of record and the representations made 

by you to the Board in connection with your request. Any change in the facts presented 

could result in a different conclusion and should be reported immediately to Board staff. 

This action is also based on all commitments provided by you in support of your request. 

These commitments are conditions imposed in writing in connection with the Board’s 

decision and, as such, may be enforced in proceedings under applicable law. This action 

is also conditioned specifically on your receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals 

related to your proposal and compliance with any terms and conditions that may be 

imposed in connection with such approvals. Additionally, if you are convicted of, or 

enter into a pretrial diversion program for, a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust,
or money laundering in the future, you must again seek approval to work for any SLHC 

or BHC, or to work for any independently owned agency that sells products for an SLHC 

or a BHC, including any agency that sells State Farm and State Farm Bank products.

Sincerely yours,

Margaret McCloskey Shanks 

Deputy Secretary of the Board
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

1

Where a court has notice of a prior ruling, the court of its own accord may raise the issue

of res judicata in order to avoid unnecessary judicial waste. See State of Arizona v. State of

California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000); Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1993) (court

may raise res judicata issue sua sponte so long as the parties have an opportunity to address the

issue prior to a ruling). 

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JO ANN CURRIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHA THERAPEUTIC

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-2115JLR

ORDER

The court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s response to the court’s prior order to show

cause (Dkt. ## 31, 32). Plaintiff’s submissions confirm that her suit is barred by res

judicata for the reasons stated below.1

 

“The threshold requirement of res judicata is a final judgment on the merits in the

prior suit. Once that threshold is met, res judicata requires sameness of subject matter,

cause of action, people and parties, and the quality of the persons for or against whom the

claim is made.” Hisle v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., 93 P.3d 108, 114 (Wash. 2004). 

(internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s exhibits to her application to

proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. ## 2-11) indicate that she has filed similar complaints

derived from the same transactional nucleus of facts against Defendant Alpha Therapeutic

Case 2:05-cv-02115-JLR Document 34 Filed 06/27/06 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

Corporation in King County and Snohomish County Superior Courts – both of which were

dismissed with prejudice and affirmed on appeal to the Washington State Court of

Appeals (Dkt. # 9). A dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final judgment on the merits. 

Id. at 114 n.10. That Plaintiff failed to raise all potential claims arising from her dealings

with the Defendant’s plasma center during the course of litigating her two suits in state

court does not change this result. Roberson v. Perez, 123 P.3d 844, 848 n.7 (Wash. 2005)

(“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents the same parties from litigating a second

lawsuit on the same claim or any other claim arising from the same transaction or series of

transactions that could have been, but was not, raised in the first suit.”) (citation omitted).

For the reasons stated above, the court DISMISSES the action with prejudice. 

Dated this 27th day of June, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02115-JLR Document 34 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 2