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

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the audited
consolidated  balance  sheet as of June 30,  1998 and the  audited  consolidated
statement  of earnings  for the year ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                         562,556
<SECURITIES>                                                   764,810
<RECEIVABLES>                                               23,155,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  1,268,000
<INVENTORY>                                                 35,737,288
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            61,538,102
<PP&E>                                                       9,253,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                               3,150,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              73,419,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       19,057,449
<BONDS>                                                     17,736,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                       406,572
<OTHER-SE>                                                  36,218,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              73,419,289
<SALES>                                                    153,674,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           153,674,226
<CGS>                                                      121,796,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              121,796,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            28,706,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           1,140,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              2,031,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   847,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          1,184,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 1,184,261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RONALD E. and LESLIE A. :

CHAMBERS, as GUARDIANS of : CIVIL ACTION

FERREN CHAMBERS an incapacitated :

person and RONALD E. and LESLIE : 

A. CHAMBERS, in their own right, : 

 :

Plaintiffs, :

v. :

 :

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF : No. 05-2535

PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF :

EDUCATION, :

Defendant. : 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10 day of August, 2012, following the Court’s October 24, 2011 th

Memorandum and Order (Doc. No.131-132), and upon consideration of the Chambers Plaintiffs’

Motion to Supplement/Reconsider (Doc. No. 141) and other various post-summary judgment

filings (Doc. No. 136, 137, 139, 145, 146, 147, 149), as well as the School District’s responses

thereto (Doc. Nos. 144, 148), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Affidavit of Mr. Ronald Chambers and all supporting exhibits not part of the

summary judgment record as of October 24, 2011 (Doc. Nos. 136, 146, 147) are

STRICKEN from the record. 

2. The Motion to Supplement/Reconsider filed by the Chambers Plaintiffs (Docket

No. 141) is DENIED. 

1

Case 2:05-cv-02535-TR Document 151 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 2
3. The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of the Defendant School

District of Philadelphia Board of Education, and against the Chambers

Plaintiffs.

4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

 

BY THE COURT:

 

 /s/ Gene E.K. Pratter 

GENE E.K. PRATTER

United States District Judge

2

Case 2:05-cv-02535-TR Document 151 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P.
for the period ended March 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlene Debel,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V


                              By:  /s/ Marlene Debel
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 9, 2008
_____________________

* Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Ms. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn 

Executive Director 

The Environmental Council of the States 

50 F Street NW Suite 350 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear~ ~~ 

JUN t·3 20~ 

OFFICE OF WATER 

Thank you for your letter sent by e-mail on April 30, 2014, concerning assumable waters under 

Clean Water Act Section 404(g). Your letter states that one of the challenges states and tribes 

encounter when pursuing assumption of the CWA's dredge and fill permit program is identifying 

the waters of the United States over which the state or tribe would administer the Section 404 

program. You also request that the Environmental Protection Agency provide clarity on the 

waters for which a state or tribe may assume CWA Section 404 permitting responsibility and the 

waters for which the US Army Corps of Engineers retains permitting responsibility. 

Additionally, you request the EPA actively engage your organizations in discussions to clarify 

this issue. 

The EPA fully supports states and tribes that want to manage and regulate aquatic resources 

under their jurisdiction, such as assuming primary responsibility for issuing dredge and fill 

permits under section 404 of the CW A. Managing aquatic resources is a partnership between the 

EPA and the states and the tribes, and CWA Section 404(g) is just one of the CWA's partnership 

opportunities. I have asked my staff to identify a path forward that enables us to engage your 

organizations, as well as other appropriate state, federal and tribal partners and technical experts 

in a process that seeks to provide clarity on assumable waters under CWA Section 404(g). 

The EPA is committed to providing clarity and removing state and tribal identified barriers to 

assumption wherever possible. We look forward to discussing this issue with you and your 

members. 

Internet Address (URL) • http.//www epa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted With Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on this important issue, or your staff may 

contact Mr. John Goodin, Acting Director of the EPA's Wetlands Division at 

Goodin.John@epa.gov or (202) 566-13 73. 

cc: Ms. Jeanne Christie 

Executive Director 

Sincerely, 

Nancy K. Sto er 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Association of State Wetlands Managers 

Ms. Julia Anastasio 

Executive Director and General Counsel 

Association of Clean Water Administrators 

Mr. Sean Rolland 

Deputy Director 

Association of Clean Water Administrator
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

141719 & (41) 

COUNTY OF WASHTENAW, 

Respondent, 

and 

WASHTENAW COUNTY TREASURER, 

 Respondent-Appellant, 

v SC: 141719 

 COA: 286874 

MERC: 04-000162 

AFSCME COUNCIL 25, 

Charging Party-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the July 29, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
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

 By order filed May 27, 2005, this court construed plaintiff’s March 15, 2005 filing as a 1

request for reconsideration and, upon reconsideration, dismissed plaintiff’s second amended

complaint and granted plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint to include his claims

against defendant hospital. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE EICHLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1108 GEB JFM P

vs.

CDC OFFICER SHERBIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On July 14,

2005, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to

Appeal In Forma Pauperis.” Plaintiff renews his April 12, 2005 request to appeal from “the

judgment entered on March 15, 2005.” The Clerk of the Court will be directed to process 1

plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal. 

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Rule 24 of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides as follows:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 36 Filed 07/28/05 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

2

a party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the

district court action. . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis

without further authorization, unless . . . the district court . . .

certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the

party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis . . . . 

Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3). Thus, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will be

denied as unnecessary.

Plaintiff also filed a request for trial transcripts and excerpts of record to be

prepared at government expense. Title 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) states:

Fees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings to persons

permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by the

United States if the trial judge or circuit judge certifies that the

appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).

Id.

In the instant case, neither the trial judge or circuit judge has certified that the

appeal was taken in good faith. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request will be denied without prejudice.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process plaintiff’s April 12, 2005 appeal; 

2. Plaintiff's July 14, 2005 request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied;

and

3. Plaintiff’s July 14, 2005 request for transcripts is denied without prejudice.

DATED: July 27, 2005. 

/001; eich1108.tra

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 36 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH   Document 48    Filed 02/03/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-28T01:04:17-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD BARRON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1197 GEB GGH P

vs.

DR. USHA PAI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 12, 2006, the court recommended that this action be dismissed based on

plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial statement. On July 21, 2006, plaintiff filed a letter with the

court stating that he requires appointment of counsel in order to proceed with this action.

The court has previously denied plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. 

See Order filed June 28, 2006. The July 12, 2006, findings and recommendations are vacated

and plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to file a pretrial statement. If plaintiff does not

comply with this order, the court will again recommend dismissal of this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The July 12, 2006, findings and recommendations are vacated; 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 51 Filed 08/02/06 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

2

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a pretrial

statement; failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this

action.

DATED: 8/2/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

bar1197.vac

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 51 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,981
<OTHER-SE>                                    (75,981)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (27,887)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,887)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Abgenix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) 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 ofthe Company.

 

August14, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/ RAYMOND  M. WITHY, PH.D.          |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Raymond M. Withy, Ph.D.               |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Abgenix, Inc. and will beretained by Abgenix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                     906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elite Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, Bernard Berk,  Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and the consolidated  result of operations of
         the Company for the periods presented.


                                    /s/ Bernard Berk
Date:    November 11, 2005          _____________________________________
                                    Bernard Berk
                                    Chief Executive Officer of
                                    Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Elite  Pharmaceuticals,   Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Elite
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

MARVIN MANDEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION,

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4468

 O R D E R 

 

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's

Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the extent that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice to

bringing an action against the insurer in this case, Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company.

Plaintiff's Motion for Remand is DENIED as moot.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04468-MK Document 7 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 65477.

#### Senter Brass Products Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/17597 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies *432the same In all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C.D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Filed 10/7/13 P. v. Rogers CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RONALD EUGENE ROGERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F065982

(Super. Ct. No. F12903935)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. 

Simpson, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Lewis A. 

Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.
2.

Defendant Ronald Eugene Rogers contends on appeal that the abstract of 

judgment in his case does not reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. 

The People agree.

Defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike conviction. The trial court 

sentenced him to 16 months, doubled to 32 months because of the prior strike conviction. 

The court imposed a $240 fine pursuant to section 1202.4,1 an additional $240 suspended 

fine pursuant to section 1202.45, a $296 probation report fee, and a few other fees. The 

abstract of judgment includes $480 fines, rather than $240 fines, pursuant to 

sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. And, as the People note, the $296 probation report fee does 

not appear on the abstract.

When there is a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement 

rendering judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls; we 

presume any inconsistency is the result of clerical error and rely upon the oral 

pronouncement contained in the reporter’s transcript. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 

Cal.4th 181, 185-186.) Accordingly, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect 

the oral pronouncement of judgment.

DISPOSITION

The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to 

reflect a $240 fine pursuant to section 1202.4, a suspended $240 fine pursuant to 

section 1202.45, and a $296 probation report fee. The clerk is directed to send a copy of 

the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As so 

corrected, the judgment is affirmed.

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-114063 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 2, 2005(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption on January 1, 2003 ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations”) relating to the financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Wisconsin Power and Light Company, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofWisconsin Power and Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 2, 2005