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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                       438
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,668
<PP&E>                                           4,238
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,412
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           22,837
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                     (25,759)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,843
<SALES>                                         22,973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,973
<CGS>                                            4,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   678
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   226
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,004)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,004)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.37)


</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

1

 If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then

plaintiff must serve documents on that attorney and not on the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GODFREY L. EVANS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2705 DFL KJM P

vs.

M. JIMENEZ, et al.,

Defendants. DISCOVERY ORDER

 /

Defendants Jimenez, Harnden, Gamberg and Zills have answered the complaint. 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36, discovery shall proceed as

follows:

1. Discovery requests shall be served by the party seeking the discovery on all

parties to the action.1

 Discovery requests shall not be filed with the court except when required

by Local Rules 30-250(a), 33-250(c), 34-250(c) and 36-250(c);

2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five days after the

request is served;

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM Document 28 Filed 10/26/06 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

3. The parties are cautioned that filing of discovery requests or responses, except

as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a

recommendation that the action be dismissed or the answer stricken;

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a), defendants may depose

plaintiff and any other witness confined in a prison upon condition that, at least fourteen days

before such a deposition, defendants serve all parties with the notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(1); and

5. If disputes arise about the parties' obligations to respond to requests for

discovery, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 5-134, 5-135, 6-136, 7-130, 7-131, 11-110, 43-

142, and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California; unless otherwise ordered, Local Rule 37-251 shall not apply. Filing of a

discovery motion that does not comply with all applicable rules may result in imposition of

sanctions, including but not limited to denial of the motion.

DATED: October 25, 2006

/mp

evan2705.440jfm

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM Document 28 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10804] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 2. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1678-DR), dated 2/1/2007. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Winter Storms.                     

*Incident Period:*                         1/12/2007 through 1/26/2007.                     

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         3/5/2007.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         4/2/2007.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road,  Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oklahoma, dated 2/1/2007, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. 

*Primary Counties:*                     Mcclain, Cleveland.                 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008.)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E7-4546 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32.02

                            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 Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Kenneth G.C. Telford
------------------------
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Chief Financial Officer
March 17, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (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 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 registrant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 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
  (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
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 control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
No. 58067.

protests 203051-K, etc. (Boston).

#### W. N. Proctor Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A, D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
No. 49182.

#### Protest 4804-K of P. P. Tyrimos (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In view of the documentary evidence produced '"the court found that the total tare of cases, and tins, and brine, in respect to the cheese involved in entry 844952, is 379 pounds rather than 191 pounds and that an allowance therefor should have been made in determining the net weight of the cheese. To this extent the protest was sustained.
CERTIFICATION
 
 
  
 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of XRAYMEDIA, Inc;Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrants of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have;
No. 65538.

#### Chemo Puro Manufacturing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/22976(A), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Before the First Division,

May 6, 1948

No. 52303.

protests 5828-K, etc. (Boston, etc.).

#### Rice & Co. Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Anmore, Inc. for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2006, I, Giorgio Saumat, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Anmore, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 

 

1.    Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Anmore, Inc. 

 
| Dated: May 22, 2006 |
|---------------------|

 

**ANMORE, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ Giorgio Saumat*Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case No. 14,471.

#### UNITED STATES v. ASKINS.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 98.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1830.

Criminal, Law — Forfeiture of Recognizance— Motion to Rescind — Personal Appearance —Malicious Disfiguring — Biting Off Ear.

1. The court will not order the forfeiture of a recognizance, in a criminal case, to he rescinded, and permit the defendant’s counsel to move in arrest of judgment, without the personal appearance of the defendant.

2. Biting off an ear is not within the Virginia act of December 17, 1792, to prevent malicious disfiguring.

Indictment for biting off the ear of John Taylor, with intent to disfigure him. Verdict “Guilty.” The defendant was called, and not appearing, his recognizance was forfeited at the present term.

Mr. Hewitt, for defendant,

moved the court to strike out the forfeiture, and permit him to move in arrest of judgment.

Mr. Swann, U. S. Atty.,

objected that it could not be done without the defendant's personal appearance.

THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,) was of that opinion, and overruled the motion.

The defendant having personally appeared, his counsel, Mr. Hewitt, was permitted to move in arrest of judgment.

The indictment purports to be under the Virginia statute of 17 December, 1792, “to prevent malicious shooting,” &e., by which it is enacted, that if any person “shall unlawfully cut out o” disable the tongue, put out an eye, slit a nose, bite, or cut off a nose, or lip, or cut off or disable any limb or member of any person whatsoever, within the commonwealth, with intent, in so doing, to maim or disfigure, in any of the manners before mentioned, such person; the person or persons, so offending,” &c„ “shall be and are hereby declared to be felons, and shall suffer as in case of felony.”

Mr. Hewitt, for defendant,

cited 6 Bae. Abr. 181, 182, 3S4; Act Cong. April 30, 1790, § 13 (1 Stat. 112), by which it is enacted, that if any person, within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, “on purpose, and of malice aforethought, shall unlawfully :ut off the ear or ears, or cut out or disable the tongue,” &c , he shall be imprisoned, &c., and fined, &e. The present indictment is not undei that act for it does not charge the malice aforethought, nor that the defendant cut off the ear. There is a difference between cutting and biting. The former shows a previous intention, biting does not.

If the Virg.nia act of 1792 includes the ear, there was no necessity of the act of 1802, which expressly provides for the biting off an ear when done maliciously and of malice aforethought 4 Tuck. Bl. Comm. 207.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) was of opinion, that the offence, as stated in the indictment, was not withm the Virginia act of 1792, p. 178. And CRANCH, Chief Judge, thought that biting could not be cajled cutting; that an ear cannot be “disabled” within the meaning of the statute; nor is the ear such a member as was intended by the statute, which had enumerated the tongue, the eye, the nose, and lip.
(Reap. Dec. 8535)

#### Joseph Maricovits, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 772165, etc.

(Decided January 27, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted *522for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto.

> That the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof cover artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems or parts thereof, or articles wholly or in chief value of the same imported from Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States was as follows:

> 1. Artificial flowers,, fruits, leaves, stems, or parts thereof wholly or in chief value of threads, filaments or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the fore-going_Appraised value, less 3 *%*packing included.

> 2. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems and parts thereof wholly or in chief value of materials other than threads, filaments or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing_Appraised value, less 5 *%*packing included.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases be submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

1. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, or parts thereof, wholly or in chief value of threads, filaments, or yarn and articles, wholly or in chief value of the foregoing— Appraised value, less 3 % packing included.

2. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, and parts thereof, wholly or in chief value of materials other than threads, filaments, or yarn and articles, wholly or in chief value of the foregoing_ Appraised value, less 5 *%*packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.33

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT  WITH STEPHEN J. HOFFMAN

The following description of certain compensation arrangements between Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the
"Company") and Stephen J. Hoffman, the Company's Chairman of the Board of Directors, is provided pursuant to Paragraph 10(iii) to Item 601
of Regulation S-K, which requires a written description of any compensatory plan or arrangement between a registrant and any of its directors when the compensation information is
not set forth in any formal document.

On
February 17, 2006,in recognition of the duties and responsibilities undertaken by Dr. Hoffman in connection with the Board of Directors' identification, evaluation and
recruitment of a suitable candidate to succeed Michael E. Hart as the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and the substantial time commitment and efforts required of Dr. Hoffman's
role, the Company's Board of Directors granted Dr. Hoffman options to purchase 20,000 shares of common stock effective February 17, 2006 (the "Initial
Grant") and agreed to grant Dr. Hoffman additional options to purchase 5,000 shares of common stock on the 1st day of each month, commencing
March 1, 2006, until such time as Mr. Hart's successor has been duly appointed (each, a "Subsequent Grant"). The Initial Grant has an
exercise price of $3.32 per share, which represents the closing sale price of a share of the Company's common stock on the date of grant (as reported by the Nasdaq National Market), and each
Subsequent Grant will have an exercise price equal to the closing sale price of a share of the Company's common stock on the date of grant (as reported by the Nasdaq National Market). All such options
will:



---





QuickLinks
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent, 2:01-cv-0511-GEB-KJM-P

vs.

JOEL NOEL PINTO,

Movant. ORDER

 /

Movant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On August 30, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01202-GEB -KJM Document 1 Filed 10/11/05 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

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that movant’s copy of

the findings and recommendations were returned, movant was

properly served. It is the movant’s responsibility to keep the

court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to

Local Rule 83-182(f), service of documents at the record address

of the party is fully effective.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 30,

2005, are adopted in full; 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the

companion civil case, No. CIV S-04-1202 GEB KJM P.

Dated: October 7, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01202-GEB -KJM Document 1 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 2