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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from  the
unaudited  consolidated financial statements included in the Company's quarterly
report  on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  quarterly  period  ended September 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      41,844
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              613,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                90,937
<INVENTORY>                                986,542
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,575,826
<PP&E>                                     473,396
<DEPRECIATION>                             284,748
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,124,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,271,645
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                    230
<COMMON>                                    13,359
<OTHER-SE>                                 789,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,124,843
<SALES>                                  2,633,127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,633,127
<CGS>                                    1,383,346
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,383,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            70,170
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          15,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (478,354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (478,354)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.040)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.040)


</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

 Because November 10 is a federal holiday, the joint plan shall be filed by November 1

13, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES P. DEFAZIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1358 DFL GGH

vs.

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

At hearing on October 19, 2006, the court directed the parties to file a joint

discovery plan by November 10, 2006. In addition to matters specified at hearing, the parties are 1

directed to address the issue of electronic discovery and the logistics to support it.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties file a joint discovery plan by

November 13, 2006. That plan shall address electronic discovery and propose logistics therefor.

DATED: 10/20/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

DeFazio1358.sup.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 147 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 1
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu Ltd.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report 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
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control
over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Kunio NojiKunio NojiPresident, Chief Executive Officer  20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT A. THOMAS,

NO. CIV. S-04-1007 FCD/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, 

Defendant.

____________________________________/

Pursuant to the representations of defendant’s counsel in the above action the court has

determined that this case has settled. 

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 160, dispositional documents are to be

filed on or before August 15, 2005. All dates set in this matter, including any pending motions,

are hereby VACATED.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ANY

PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01007-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.2** **CORPORATE    PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 16 — GLOBAL INCORPORATED** **CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO    RULE 13a-14(a)**     I, Mark J. DeCesaris, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of Corporate Property Associates 16 — Global    Incorporated;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report 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 with respect to the period covered by this quarterly    report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this quarterly report,    fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,    results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and we have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly    report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this    quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the    disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period    covered by this quarterly report based on such    evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal controls over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.       11/14/2006
No. 47815.

#### Protest 953844-G of Newland, Schnecloch & Piek, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 44140 the atomizers in question were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) as claimed.
|   | (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | s/ Jesus R.      Adia                           |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Jesus      R. Adia                                                                                                                                                                |
|   | President      and                                                                                                                                                                |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                      |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                              |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                              |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                              |
|   | /s/ John S.      Lotardo                                            |
|   | John      S. Lotardo                                                                                                                                                              |
|   | Executive      Vice President and                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                      |
Exhibit 23



|                                                                                                       |  |                   
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------
|LOGO                                                                                                   |  | FAX (303) 623-4258
|                                                                                                      
|621 SEVENTEENTH STREET        SUITE 1550        DENVER, COLORADO
80293        TELEPHONE (303) 623-9147

CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT
COMPANY, L.P.

We consent to the filing of our summary reserve report dated March 28, 2011, as Exhibit 99.1 to the PrimeEnergy
Corporation annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and to any reference made to us on that form 10-K.



Very Truly YoursLOGORYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


Denver, Colorado

March 29, 2011



|                           |  |                           |  |                    |  |                   
|-------------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------
|1100 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3800 |  | HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218 |  | TEL (713) 651-9191 |  | FAX (713) 651-0849
|1200, 530-8TH AVENUE, S.W. |  | CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 358  |  | TEL (403) 262-2799 |  | FAX (403) 262-2790
No. 66815.

#### The Best Foods, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 269341-KS (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58032.

protest 210075-K (New York).

#### R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grenadine the same in all material respects as that the subject of *La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 44, C. A. D. 461), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58006.

protests 215758-K and 220873-K (New York).

#### American Thermo-Ware Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)). ' .
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42542

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PATRICK M. TWEEDIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 415

Filed: March 4, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Teton County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, District Judge. 

Order granting, in part, Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, 

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Patrick M. Tweedie pled guilty to rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(2). The district court 

imposed a unified sentence of sixteen years, with four years determinate. Tweedie filed an Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court granted in part, 

reducing Tweedie’s sentence to a unified fourteen years, with three years determinate. Tweedie

appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by declining to further reduce his 

sentence.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 
2

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Tweedie’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude 

no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order granting, in part, 

Tweedie’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
#### McCoy et al., Appellants, *v.*Hetzl et al.

*Practice, Superior Court*— *Appeals*— *Assignments of error*— *Final decree*— Failure *to include in assignment.*

An appeal from a decree refusing to grant an injunction will be dismissed where the final decree is neither quoted verbatim nor specifically assigned for error.

Argued March 11, 1924.

Appeal, No. 306, Oct. T., 1923, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1920, No. 8703, dismissing bill in equity in the case of Josepha F. McCoy and James D. Coplin v. Ferdiand A. Hetzl, Mathilde Hetzl, Charles Bourgeois, Bosalie Bourgeois, George McNaughton, Marie A. MeNaughton, Ben T. Welch, John F. Weiss and Carrie Weiss.

Before Qrlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Appeal dismissed.

Bill in equity for injunction. Before Stern, J.

The court dismissed the bill. Plaintiffs appealed.

*Errors assigned*were various answers to requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

*Vivian F. Gable,*of *Gable, Vaughn & Gaul,*for appellants.

*Paul Reilly*and *C. M. Butterworth, Jr.,*and with them *Joseph H. Grubb, Jr.,*and *Frederick G. Newbourg, Jr.,*for appellees.

July 2, 1924:

Per Curiam,

Appellees’ first proposition is, that nothing in this record will sustain a reversal, calling our attention to the defective character of the 31 assignments of error filed; it is true, they violate our rules 23 and *27;*but, what is *73more serious, appellees further insist that as the final decree was not assigned for error, the appeal should be dismissed. We are constrained to accede to that view: Prenatt v. Messenger Printing Co., 241 Pa. 267, 269; Hotel Co. v. Ry. Co., 242 Pa. 569, 573; Browarsky’s Est., 252 Pa. 35, 38.

Appeal dismissed at cost of appellants.
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 m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Shay Ben-Asulin,
Chairman of the Board and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

            (1) the Report fully comply 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 result of operations of the
Company.

SHAY BEN-ASULIN
-------------------------
Shay Ben-Asulin, Chairman

Dated: August 16, 2004



                                      -34-
<PAGE>
No. 6500.

#### STATE, EX REL., P. McGILL, CONSTABLE vs. HON. HENRY RENSHAW, JUDGE.

Syllabus.

In a proceeding by mandamus to compel the granting of an appeal, the question is not as to the correctness of the judgment complained of, but whether or not the relator may be adversely affected thereby.

E. M. Stafford, Howell Carter, Jr., for relators.

Carleton Hunt and W. W. Wright, for respondent.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and .decree of the Court, as follows:

Relator seeks by mandamus to compel the respondent to allow him an appeal from a judgment condemning him to pay over a certain fund to a certain litigant.

The learned respondent concludes his return as follows:

> *160“The question is not as to the correctness of the decree on the rule, but as to the constable’s right to an appeal.”

And the brief filed in his behalf states the issue in these words:

> “It is conceded that the pivotal point on which the case turns is whether or not the constable has an appealable interest.”

Such is our understanding of the matter.

In the case at bar, the constable has, in our opinion, shown such an interest.

He alleges that the fund which he has been condemned to pay over, came into his hands whilst he held two distinct writs against the same defendant, taken out by two distinct parties, in two distinct proceedings, pending before different Judges of the 'Court a qua; that’the tund is not sufficient to satisfy both writs; that the judgment condemning him to pay the fund to one of the parties was not rendered contradictorily with the other, and will not protect him against the subsequent claims .of that other party if well founded.

Under this recital the constable’s appealable interest admits of' no doubt, since, if in fact the proper parties were not before the Court, and there was no laches on his part, the judgment though prejudicial to him will not protect him.

It is therefore ordered that the mandamus herein issued be now made peremptory and accordingly that the respondent be directed to allow relator a suspensive and devolutive appeal from the judgment by him rendered on July 12th, 1915, in the matter entitled F. C. Philippe, Jr., *161vs. William Weisfeld, No. 70,054 of the docket of his Court; the costs hereof to remain as incurred.

Opinion and decree, December 6th, 1915.

State vs. Recorder, 45 An., 1199.