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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          79,742
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,507
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,211
<INVENTORY>                                      7,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               263,873
<PP&E>                                       1,072,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                 132,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,129,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          224,904
<BONDS>                                      1,125,992
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,010
<OTHER-SE>                                     548,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,129,855
<SALES>                                        633,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               633,303
<CGS>                                          344,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  344,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,532
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,876
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 53,205
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,329)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
No. 51480.

#### Protests 122634r-K (A), etc., of Maurice Kobel et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended
September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Robert F. Scumaci, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his knowledge:



Date: November 7, 2008

/s/ ROBERT F. SCUMACI Robert F. Scumaci Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will be retained by Sepracor Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 171 ) ll-E-22 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 171 of 276P. 2


## CONVERSATIO N RECOR D TIME



# 112 (jl
. £22 j 

### AE 

## />*>; 1 ft TYP E •VISI T Locatio n o fVisit/Conferenc* : •CONFERENC E •TELEPHON E
•INCOMIN G
•OUTGOIN G NAM E O F PERSON(S ) CONTACTE D O R I N CONTAC T WIT H YO U f)q l/^J J C I'crti-y ORGANIZATIO N (Office , dept. , bureau , etc. ) 

# 6*Q& 6^q TELEPHON E NO :



# f 3 7 . SUBJEC T 

# B^UL l/Slffo O HQ -Rl4

r 

# - / •7 

# f" ? -*, 9 ROUTIN G NAME/SYMBO L 

### tf-2.\LCTJ"-ZC

## Uilit K*,TC >W ''^Oi's.vHl IN

T

SUMMAR Y 

## A- Li^ Firhi IL$G*-tdi'\;iAfrf 1/t- r-Lfu^r/i? JJLL /fyi

y j-j. ^rc ( 

## .fv-i r^ti/*» > &/?/h c L 

# bi/fflco. fin J/ <LHO

u,(U

f^-r tyS,'ey

Tc re \ #'*<•( 

# cl; r^r/-f i^far<< Cf» c*/» *C*t(~T A* ve.** t-t 'CH TwF*

rV/ s 

## WgftO /JYI/L^ 

## A* £-£**

f-;.li„*rCd.l

.


# 1(1 - 7£^J

/

v 

# .i*illM

A[U<M*-4 

# r^la^i 

# ty T CsfTA<LU. Lt

<s f- ( r 

## ^ .y*C <t 

# I L YT^ 

# €0^ , 

# t $ 

### 1 \ . v'- A ACTIO N REQUIRE D



## 'CfTe. t^-h,^

r*{'W7

&riW NAM E O F PERSO N DOCUMENTIN G CONVERSATIO N SIGNATUR E 

# /S ^ 

# (/,, /TSA^

# ^ / > / Z* DAT E
ACTIO N TAKE N

SIGNATUR E OAT E

50271-10 1 rtGPO : 198 4 0 - 461-27 5 (317 ) CONVERSATIO N RECOR D OPTIONA L FOR M 27 1 (12-76 ) DEPARTMEN TO F DEFENS E
SI0-1003 I 1-005 

KANSA S 

MANHAIIAN fiEGIONAI. Aim'OftI 

March 1,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. l.allood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0034 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

I {ini writing to express my support for the application for antitrust immunity and 

proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines (AA) and Japan Airlines 

(JAL). liie proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for the oncworld 

alliance to compete effectively with the Star and SkyTcam alliances. This increased 

alliance competition will in turn enhance the bcncllts of the Department's Open Skies 

policy - first by solidifying U.S. - Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a foundation for 

further openness across Asia. 

I .strongly encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application as it 

would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver highly 

competitive air transportation services. Approval of the AA/JAL alliance will have a 

positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing 

options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit fi-om the competition 

afforded by three competitive air alliances. 

I urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerely, 

Peter C. Van Kuren 

Airport Director 

FLY .COM 

Manhattan Regional Airport
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED IN THE REGISTRANTS REPORT ON FORM 10Q
FOR JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          57,653
<SECURITIES>                                     3,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,196)
<INVENTORY>                                     34,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,874
<PP&E>                                          24,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (7,619)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,409
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           219
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,518
<SALES>                                         69,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,238
<CGS>                                           39,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   316
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (34,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (42,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42,331)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.13)
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 27, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00108

- CV

Charles Norris, Appellant

v.

Melissa M. Norris, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE M BERTON AND FI ELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s

order : IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the order of the district court

is in all things affirmed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified below for

observance.
Before the Third Division,

August 8, 1952

No. 56830.

#### A. J. Arango a/c Maurice Pincoffs Co. *v.*United States,

protest 170582-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of “damaged sunflower seed meal, damaged by fire; that it was imported and sold to be used exclusively as fertilizer, or as an ingredient in the manufacture of fertilizer; that it is black in color and when imported was used for fertilizer purposes only; that at the time of importation and immediately prior thereto that type of merchandise was used chiefly as fertilizer, or as an ingredient in the manufacture of fertilizer.” In view of the stipulation, it was held that the merchandise is entitled to free entry as claimed by the plaintiff.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANKLIN MANRIQUE CORTEZ

CHAVEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-70111

Agency No. A070-965-637

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Franklin Manrique Cortez Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing

his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

FILED

MAR 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and

review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92

(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Cortez

Chavez’s motion to reopen, where it was filed approximately sixteen years after

issuance of his final order of removal, and Cortez Chavez does not challenge the

agency’s determination that he received proper notice of the hearing. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(b)(5)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). In addition, he failed to establish

that he warranted equitable tolling of the filing deadline, where he did not meet the

procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA

1988), Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011), and the alleged

ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record, see Reyes v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (9th Cir. 2004).

Finally, the agency did not violate due process in denying Cortez Chavez’s

motion, because he failed to show prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246

(9th Cir. 2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 14-70111
<PAGE>   1
 
   
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01
    
 
   
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
    
 
   
We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of this
Registration Statement on Form S-4 of CSK Auto, Inc. of our report dated May 21,
1996 relating to the financial statements of CSK Auto, Inc., which appears in
such Prospectus. We also consent to the application of such report to the
Financial Statement Schedule for the two years ended January 28, 1996 listed
under item 21(b) of this Registration Statement when such schedule is read in
conjunction with the financial statements referred to in our report. The audits
referred to in such report also included this schedule. We also consent to the
references to us under the headings "Experts" and "Selected Financial Data" in
such Prospectus. However, it should be noted that Price Waterhouse LLP has not
prepared or certified such "Selected Financial Data."
    
 
   
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
    
 
   
Phoenix, Arizona
    
   
April 22, 1997
No. 54442.

#### Difco Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 143821-K, etc. (Detroit).

*222Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-29-1998
<CASH>                                       6,675,907
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,074,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,387,757
<INVENTORY>                                 36,898,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            88,039,577
<PP&E>                                      13,898,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             132,745,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,168,017
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,175
<OTHER-SE>                                  90,593,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               132,745,703
<SALES>                                     65,503,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            65,503,519
<CGS>                                       37,398,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,398,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,132,010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               163,845
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (157,918)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,638,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,749,995
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,738,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,738,193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</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

MINUTE ORDER 1–

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MAIKOIYO ALLEY-BARNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREG W. SACKMAN; et al.,

Defendants.

C06-882Z

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas

S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

(1) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, docket no. 29,

and ORDERS that the Defendants shall fully answer Interrogatories 1–7 and shall provide all

documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents 1–5, 7, and

16–18, with the exception that redactions may be made to eliminate social security numbers

and other personal information not relevant to this case.

(2) The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion for

Protective Order Relating to IIS Files, docket no. 27. The Court DENIES Defendants’

motion to prevent discovery of evaluative portions of IIS files and unrelated IIS files and

STRIKES AS MOOT Defendants’ related motion for a protective order relating to such files.

(3) The Court ORDERS that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order regarding IIS

files approved by the Court this date, shall also govern production of all IIS files produced

pursuant to this Minute Order.

Case 2:06-cv-00882-TSZ Document 58 Filed 02/15/07 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

MINUTE ORDER 2–

(4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

record.

Filed and entered this 15th day of February, 2007.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/ Claudia Hawney

By Claudia Hawney

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00882-TSZ Document 58 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 2
5200

5200

5500

5400

5400

5400

5200

4800

5200

4600

5200

4900

4800

4900

5200

4600

5300

4700

5200

5100

4800

5200

5200

5000

5400

4900

5300

5000

5000

4700

5100

5300

4900

4700

4900

South Fork Owyhee

River

South

Fork

Owyhee

River

South F

ork

O

wyhee

River

South Fork Owyhee

River

Upper John

G Reservoir

Upper Walcot

Basin Reservoir

Stump Reservoir

Breakdown

Reservoir

Last Chance

Reservoir

John G

Reservoir

Bull Camp

Reservoir

Coyote

Hole

Walcot

Basin

30" 30"

42°

45'

42°

47' 116°

45'

30"

30"

30"

42°

00'

116°52' 47'

30"

52'

2'

5'

116°

00'

2'

50'

07'

5'

50'

42°

116°

30" 30"

07'

46

5 5

46

46

46

5

46

E

46

5

46

5 5

46

46

46

5

46

46

46 46

46

46

46

46

5 5

46

5 5

5

5

000m

5 5

46

5

000m

000m

46

46

46

46

5

000m

5

46

56

11 17 20

63

53

12

5

54

12 15

51

57

52

57

61

58

14

50

55

51

16

62

60

53

63 N

55

60

50

15

54

52

19

16

58

E 13

62

13 14 17 19

N

56

18 20

18

160

FEET

000

000

FEET

350

FEET

320

130 000

000

2 FEET

2

Star

Valley

Piute

Basin

West

Grassy

Ridge

Bull

Camp

Butte

Spring

Creek

Basin

Star Valley

Ridge West Rubber

Hill

Coyote

Hole

Star Valley

Ridge East

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

IDAHO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

COYOTE HOLE, ID

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

COYOTE HOLE QUADRANGLE

IDAHO

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 11T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Idaho Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2009

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

M

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 N

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 8 ́

2 MILS

14° 11 ́

252 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

11T

NG

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10.8a


                                August 6, 1997



Mr. Wally Vonsh
President
Champion Financial Services, Inc.
2525 East Camelback Road, Suite 1150
Phoenix, Arizona  85018

         Re:      Modification of Employment Agreement

Dear Wally:

         The purpose of this letter is to confirm the following changes we have
mutually agreed to make to your existing Employment Agreement:

         1.    The Employment Agreement is assumed by Ugly Duckling Corporation.
         2.    The term of the Employment Agreement is extended to April, 2002.
         3.    Your current salary will be reviewed on or before April 1, 1998,
               and an increase up to $200,000.00 per year will be considered,
               subject to profitability of the Company and approval of the
               Compensation Committee of the board of directors.
         4.    50,000 additional options will be granted to you on or before
               April 1, 1998.
         5.    The term of your covenants of non-competition will be extended
               for three years after the expiration or termination of the
               Employment Agreement.

         Please acknowledge your acceptance of these changes to your Employment
Agreement by signing this letter and returning it to me. If you have any
questions regarding this amendment to your Employment Agreement, please talk to
me or Ernie at your convenience.

                                            Cordially,

                                            /S/ Steven P. Johnson 

                                            Steven P. Johnson
                                            General Counsel
SPJ:ag

Accepted August 6, 1997.
         --------

/s/ Walter T. Vonsh
-------------------------------------
Walter T. Vonsh
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO LEON-ANDRES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70511 

Agency No. A089-818-033 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an 

Order of the Immigration Judge

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Antonio Leon-Andres, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in 

Guatemala, and is thus not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-70511 

fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 

829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Leon-Andres failed 

to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala on account of a 

protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an 

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see 

also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to 

be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by 

gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Leon-Andres

failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or 

acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian v. 

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not 

establish the necessary state action for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.