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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          17,789
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                       697
<INVENTORY>                                     26,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,503
<PP&E>                                         113,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,038
<BONDS>                                         40,340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           25,506
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,904
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,607)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,474
<SALES>                                        219,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               228,655
<CGS>                                          146,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,157
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,157
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,157
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC PER SFAS 128
<F2>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED PER SFAS 128
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 50453.

#### Protests 100650-K, etc., of Foster Canning Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which' record was incorporated herein. In' accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7283

JOHN DANIEL KELLY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Warden of WCI; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-856-DKC)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Daniel Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Tuabe, Assistant Attorney General,

Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Daniel Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Kelly v. Sizer, No. CA-98-856-

DKC (D. Md. July 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
AGENDA

Consultation with the

Maine Tribal Leaders

Maine Revised Water Quality Standards

• Introductions

Wednesday April3rd 2013

900am I200pm

• Opening Remarks Curt Spalding

• Technical and Legal Overview

Williamson

Ellen WeitzlerTim

• Tribal Input Discussion Tribal Leaders

Meeting Participants

Tribal Leaders Richard Getchell Chief Aroostook Band of Micmacs

Bill Thompson Vice Chief Penobscot Indian Nation

Clayton Sockabasin Vice Chief Passamaquoddy Tribe Indian Twp

Tribal Environmental Directors Managers

EPA Attendees

Marvin Cling Environmental Planner

Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians Pleasant Point

John Banks Natural Resources Director Penobscot Indian Nation

Dan Kusnierz Water Resources Manager Penobscot Indian Nation

Trevor White Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians Indian Township

Sharri Venno Environmental Planner Houlton Band of

Maliseet Indians

Fred Corey Environmental Director Aroostook Band of Micmacs

Curt Spalding Regional Administrator

Ira Leighton Deputy Regional Administrator

Tim Williamson Deputy Director Office of Regional Counsel

Ken Moraff Acting Director Office of Ecosystem Protection

Ellen Weitzler Water Quality Standards Coordinator

Stephen Perkins Ocean Coastal Programs

Lois Adams Branch Chief Grants Tribal Community Pgms

CAPT Michael Stover Tribal Program Manager

Location EPA Region 1 Office

5 Post Office Square

Boston MA

EPA000484
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONELL THOLMER,

Petitioner,

v.

C.M. HARRISON,

Respondent.

CIV S 04-2491 FCD PAN P

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Respondent’s application for a 30-day enlargement of

time in which to file a response in this matter is hereby GRANTED. Respondent’s response is

due on June 7, 2006. Petitioner’s traverse shall be filed and served not later than thirty days

thereafter.

Dated: May 4, 2006.

/thol2491.ext2

Case 2:04-cv-02491-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                       Exhibit 8

Name of Subsidiary                                Jurisdiction of Organization
------------------                                ----------------------------
CableSoft Corporation                             United States (Delaware)
OpenTV AG                                         Switzerland
OpenTV Asia Pacific KK                            Japan
OpenTV Australia Pty Ltd                          Australia (New South Wales)
OpenTV Europe S.A.S.                              France
OpenTV GmbH                                       Germany
OpenTV Holding NV                                 Netherlands Antilles
OpenTV Holdings BV                                The Netherlands
OpenTV Hong Kong Limited                          Hong Kong
OpenTV Iberia SL                                  Spain
OpenTV, Inc.                                      United States (Delaware)
OpenTV Interactive Software (Beijing) Co. Ltd.    China
OpenTV International Holdings, Inc.               United States (Delaware)
OpenTV UK Limited                                 United Kingdom
OpenTV US Holdings, Inc.                          United States (Delaware)
OpenTV US Investments, Inc.                       United States (Delaware)
Spyglass Europe Limited                           United Kingdom
Spyglass, Inc.                                    United States (Delaware)
Spyglass Integration, Inc.                        United States (Delaware)
Spyglass International, Inc.                      United States (Delaware)
Static 2358 France SARL                           France
Static 2358 Holdings Limited                      United Kingdom
Static 2358, Inc.                                 United States (California)
Static 2358 Limited                               United Kingdom
Static 2358 (U.S.), Inc.                          United States (Delaware)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL TURNER, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

: NO. 05-3454

v. :

:

DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, et al., :

Respondents. :

MEMORANDUM

BUCKWALTER, S.J. February 10, 2006

Petitioner has filed a pleading entitled “Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and

Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate.” That objection is that the District Attorney of

Philadelphia in federal court pleadings in their response to petitioner’s habeas corpus

proceedings “misrepresented the facts and was premised on fraudulent premises.” This

conclusionary statement is not supported by any factual basis.

To the extent that petitioner raised claims of fraud in his petition before the

magistrate judge, such claims are properly dealt with in the Report and Recommendation (see

pages 7 and 8).

Attempting to get around the time bar for filing a petition for habeas corpus and

the bar for filing a second or successive petition, petitioner seeks relief under Rule 60(b). As

carefully pointed out in the Report and Recommendation, pages 5 through 8, petitioner is not

entitled to 60(b) relief.

An order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-03454-RB Document 8 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL TURNER, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

: NO. 05-3454

v. :

:

DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, et al., :

Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10

th day of February, 2006, upon consideration of the petition for writ

of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner’s request for relief under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b) and the Court’s equitable powers, and the response to the habeas petition, and

after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R.

Strawbridge, and petitioner’s objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as a second or

successive petition filed without the required authorization from the Court of Appeals;

3. Petitioner’s request for relief under Rule 60(b) and the Court’s equitable powers

is DENIED; and

4. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in that petitioner has failed to

demonstrate that a reasonable jurist could conclude that the Court is incorrect in denying the petitioner’s

request for relief under Rule 60(b) and the Court’s equitable powers and dismissing the petition as a

second or successive petition.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter, S. J. 

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:05-cv-03454-RB Document 8 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3464]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Housing Privatization Phase II, Hickam Air Force Base, HI and 
Bellows Air Force Station, HI

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force.

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 13, 2007, the United States Air Force signed the 
ROD for the Housing Privatization Phase II, Hickam Air Force Base, 
Hawaii, and Bellows Air Force Station, Hawaii. The ROD states the Air 
Force decision to implement Alternative B (Privatization Excluding Fort 
Kamehameha) that will convey and privatize 1,297 of the remaining 1,330 
Government-owned military housing units on Hickam AFB and six family 
housing units on Bellows AFS. Privatization would exclude the 25.75 
acres of land and 33 historic housing units on Fort Kamehameha.
    The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), inputs from the public and 
regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final EIS was made 
available on December 22, 2006 in the Federal Register (Volume 71, 
Number 246, Page 77013) with a wait period ending January 22, 2007. The 
ROD documents only the decision of the Air Force with respect to the 
proposed Air Force actions analyzed in the Final EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronnie Lanier, 15 CES/CEV, 75 H 
Street, Hickam AFB, Hawaii, (808) 449-1584 x238.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-3464 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4215]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-07-018]
RIN 1625-AA-09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Susquehanna River, at Havre de 
Grace, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a 
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) Bridge, at mile 1.0, 
across Susquehanna River at Havre de Grace, Maryland. This deviation 
allows the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation beginning at 6 
p.m. on March 30, 2007, until and including 6 p.m. on June 8, 2007, to 
facilitate structural repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 p.m. on March 30, 2007, until 
6 p.m. on June 8, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for 
inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, 
Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-
5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The telephone number is (757) 398-6222. Commander (dpb), 
Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this 
temporary deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management 
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AMTRAK Bridge, a swing-type drawbridge, 
has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 52 feet, 
above mean high water.
    AMTRAK, the bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from 
the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.575 and to close 
the drawbridge to navigation to perform needed structural repairs.
    The repairs will include the renewal of 3,184 bridge timbers as 
well as the installation of new rail and expansion joints. To 
facilitate this work, the AMTRAK Bridge will be maintained in the 
closed-to-navigation position beginning at 6 p.m. on March 30, 2007, 
until and including 6 p.m. on June 8, 2007.
    The Coast Guard has informed the known users of the waterway of the 
closure periods for the bridge so that these vessels can arrange their 
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to 
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated 
time period.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 
33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-4215 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
**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 CHAAS Acquisitions, LLC (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan C. Johnson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
ALAN C. JOHNSON
 Alan C.
Johnson
 President
and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
Executive Officer)
 May
13 , 2005
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Catherine Angelo, Respondent, v New York State Association of Learning Disabled et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 693]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 18, 1994, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant, a student at the College of St. Rose (hereinafter St. Rose) in the City of Albany, was required to complete several internships to achieve her degree in speech therapy. For her last such assignment, claimant was placed at the New York State Association of Learning Disabled’s Wildwood School, a facility that had agreed to provide internship opportunities for St. Rose students. In the course of her duties there, she was injured. When claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, a dispute arose with respect to whether she had an employer-employee relationship with Wildwood. The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately found that Wild-wood had benefitted from claimant’s services, because she had performed the duties of an unreplaced speech therapist who was on maternity leave, and that the institution had exercised sufficient control over claimant’s performance of those services to create an employer-employee relationship. Wildwood and its compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as Wildwood) appeal the Board’s determination.

After claimant and her witness testified, Wildwood sought to call its employee, who had served as claimant’s field instructor, to testify about the benefit the institution had purportedly received as a result of the internship. Specifically, Wildwood sought to refute claimant’s assertion that, had she not been present, the duties of the therapist on maternity leave would have gone unperformed. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) concluded that the record was sufficient without this additional testimony and closed the record. *833Wildwood is entitled to an opportunity to be heard *(see, Matter of Hecht v Monaghan,*307 NY 461, 470; *cf, Matter of Rauer v State Univ.,*159 AD2d 835, 836) and, claimant’s contrary view notwithstanding, we are of the opinion that it has preserved this right, by raising and arguing the matter at every opportunity, not only before the WCLJ, but also during oral argument before the Board. Inasmuch as the Board reversed the WCLJ on the specific factual issues with respect to which Wild-wood sought to introduce evidence, the determination must be reversed, and the matter remitted to permit Wildwood to develop its position on the record.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
Before the Second Division,

July 10, 1942

No. 47384.

#### Protests 1606-K, etc., of Indo Persian Fine Art Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Prom an examination of the record it was found that certain of the items consist of woven silk mufflers similar in all material respects to those involved in protest 984394-G (Abstract 44055). In accordance therewith those imported prior to the effective date of the trade agreement with the United Kingdom (T. D. 49753) were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1209, and those imported subsequent to that date were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1209 and T. D. 49753, as claimed.
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

Ray Anthony Walston

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2338 DFL CMK P

vs.

Edward S. Alameida, Jr. et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

By order filed December 20, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims with

leave to amend the complaint within thirty days. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Case 2:04-cv-02338-JKS-CMK Document 5 Filed 10/26/05 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

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 24, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02338-JKS-CMK Document 5 Filed 10/26/05 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC V. PETERSON, No. CIV S. 05-1355 WBS GGH

Plaintiff,

v. No. CIV S. 05-0423 FCD KJM

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

 / NON-RELATED CASE ORDER

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S. 04-2492 MCE GGH PS

v.

CEDRIC V. PETERSON,

Defendant.

 /

The court has received the Notice of Related Cases concerning

the above-captioned cases filed July 5, 2005. See Local Rule 83-

123, E.D. Cal. (1997). The court has determined, however, that it

is inappropriate to relate or reassign the cases, and therefore

declines to do so. This order is issued for informational purposes

Case 2:04-cv-02492-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 08/04/05 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

only, and shall have no effect on the status of the cases,

including any previous Related (or Non-Related) Case Order of this

court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02492-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2