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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          62,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,852,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   923,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,465,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      19,439,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 590,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,474,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,154,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,474,000
<SALES>                                      8,165,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,165,000
<CGS>                                       28,008,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,454,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,337,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (61,117,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (61,117,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (61,117,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.22)


</TABLE>
#### Bronxville Knolls, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Webster Town Center Partnership et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 62]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered August 1, 1994, dismissing plaintiffs complaint, with prejudice, and bringing up for review an order of the same court and Justice entered the same date, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In order to prevail on a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documents relied upon must definitively dispose of plaintiff’s claim *(Juliano v McEntee,*150 AD2d 524, 525; *Demas v 325 W. End Ave. Corp.,*127 AD2d 476, 477). The IAS Court, in dismissing the complaint based upon documentary evidence, properly determined that the explicit and unambiguous, broad non-recourse clause of the integrated mortgage and mortgage note precluded the underlying action by the plaintiffs for a personal judgment as against the defendants on the mortgage note. Said clause clearly established the intention of the parties that the only recourse in connection with the underlying loan was the mortgaged property. The mortgage note expressly incorporates the mortgage and contains no separate or contradictory provision. The two instruments, which were negotiated and executed as part of an integrated agreement for the purchase of real property, should be read and considered together as part of the same transaction *(Stern v Itkin Bros.,*87 Misc 2d 538 [Sup Ct, NY County, Fein, J.]).

Plaintiffs’ reliance upon *Pessin v Persaud*(92 AD2d 490), is misplaced. There, unlike the case at bar, the mortgage did not contain any language expressly precluding a personal judgment, did not contain any language directing the mortgagee to look to the security of the mortgaged property in the event of a default, and did not contain any language similar to that herein, that "nothing contained herein or in any other instrument shall obligate the mortgagor further than to bind its right, title and interest in the mortgaged premises”. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. LEROY VAUGHN, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

April 13, 1964. Granted.

*Mr. Guy*W. *Calissi*and *Mr. John K. Walsh*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Morton Stavis*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
| (1)   | The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: October 19, 2012 | By:    | /s/ Paul Goodman                                                    |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Paul Goodman,Chief Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer |   |
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GEORGE W. MAGARGEL, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

21 USCMA 354, 45 CMR 128

*355No. 24,733

April 28, 1972

*Donald H. Green, Esquire, Terrence R. Murphy, Esquire,*and *Commander Maitland G. Freed,*JAGC, USN, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro,*Jr., JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Judge:

This accused was involved in the same incident as the accused in United States v Sikorksi, 21 USCMA 345, 45 CMR 119, decided this date, but was tried separately. The court-martial acquitted him of conspiracy to commit robbery and murder, and murder, but convicted him of assault with intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, as a lesser offense included within the murder charge, and of robbery. We granted review, without requiring briefs, to consider an instructional issue as to which we had earlier granted review in the *Sikorski*case.

Sikorski’s trial was concluded on April 22, 1970, and this case began on May 4. The same judge presided at both trials. During an out-of-court discussion of instructions, the following occurred:

> “DC: Just to clear a point up, Colonel HOPPE, wé assume that you are going to instruct the court that, if they find the confession was involuntary, to disregard MAGAR-GEL’s testimony?

> “MJ: Yes.

> “IC: That’s the last thing we have left.”

As in *Sikorski,*the record demonstrates that defense counsel affirmatively desired that the now-challenged instruction be given to the court members. Consequently, as in *Sikorski,*we are not persuaded that the instruction should be regarded as ground for reversal. See also United States v Jackson, 5 USCMA 584, 588, 18 CMR 208 (1955); compare United States v Minnifield, 9 USCMA 373, 26 CMR 153 (1958). Additionally, consideration of the effect of the instruction can be put aside because the pretrial statement was properly admitted in evidence, and it affirmatively appears, from defense counsel’s statement at the beginning of the trial that the defense would introduce evidence of the accused’s good character and reputation for truthfulness, that the accused would have testified without regard to the admission of his pretrial statement. See United States v Mackey, 21 USCMA 254, 45 CMR 28 (1972); United States v Evans, 454 F2d 813 (CA 8th Cir) (1972). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review.

Judge Duncan concurs.

Chief Judge Darden concurs in the result.
PUBLISHED

Filed: May 13, 2004

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER, 

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Intervenor/Plaintiff,

v.

PARKE-DAVIS, a division of Warner

Lambert; PFIZER, INCORPORATED, its  No. 02-2264

successor by merger,

Defendants-Appellants,

v.

DANNY A. RADER, MD; TERRI MILES,

RN; JOHN/JANE DOE, MD; JANE DOE,

R.N.; JOHN/JANE DOE, Pharmacist;

JOHN/JANE DOE, Pharmacy

Technician; JOHN DOE,

Agency/Corporation,

Third Party Defendants. 
CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER, 

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Intervenor/Plaintiff,

v.

PARKE-DAVIS, a division of Warner

Lambert; PFIZER, INCORPORATED, its  No. 02-2303

successor by merger,

Defendants-Appellees,

DANNY A. RADER, MD; TERRI MILES,

RN; JOHN/JANE DOE, MD; JANE DOE,

R.N.; JOHN/JANE DOE, Pharmacist;

JOHN/JANE DOE, Pharmacy

Technician; JOHN DOE,

Agency/Corporation,

Third Party Defendants. 

ORDER

After our order had been entered referring this case to the West

Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, a question has arisen as to

whether or not Parke-Davis and Pfizer, the drug companies involved,

have been released because of the settlement agreement and order in

the settlement proceeding entered July 15, 1998 in the West Virginia

State Court. 

Accordingly, we request the West Virginia Supreme Court of

Appeals to defer action on our order of reference so that we may

remand the case to the United States District Court from which the

2 CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER v. PARKE-DAVIS
appeal was taken for the limited purpose of examining the question

of whether or not Parke-Davis and Pfizer have been or have not been

so released. 

A reply from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is

respectfully requested at its convenience. 

With the concurrences of Judge Wilkinson and Judge Niemeyer. 

/s/ H.E. Widener, Jr.

For the Court

CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER v. PARKE-DAVIS 3
Exhibit 32.10

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Frontier Diversified Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund                                                                                                                    
|Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund                                                      

Date: August 11, 2010
No. 40239.

#### Petition 5717-R of Folkard & Lawrence, Inc. (New York).

*506Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was found that the petitioner acted without intention to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser. The petition was therefore granted.
#### Dennis G. Littlefield *v.*Albany County Bank.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bookes, J., and by Learned, P. J., dissenting.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5008 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5008

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the railroad track 
                          maintenance credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2024

 Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Crapo) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the railroad track 
                          maintenance credit.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE CREDIT.

    (a) Increase in Credit Amount.--
            (1) In general.--Section 45G(b)(1)(A) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$3,500'' and 
        inserting ``$6,100''.
            (2) Inflation adjustment.--Section 45G of such Code is 
        amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Inflation Adjustment.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxable year beginning 
        after 2025, the $6,100 amount in subsection (b)(1)(A) shall be 
        increased by an amount equal to--
                    ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which 
                the taxable year begins, determined by substituting 
                `calendar year 2024' for `calendar year 2016' in 
                subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
            ``(2) Rounding.--Any increase determined under paragraph 
        (1) which is not a multiple of $100 shall be rounded to the 
        nearest multiple of $100.''.
    (b) Qualified Railroad Track Maintenance Expenditures.--Section 
45G(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
``January 1, 2015'' and inserting ``January 1, 2024''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2024.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13340-13341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5082]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 09/79-0450]


Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., 2425 
Olympic Blvd., Suite 6050W, Santa Monica, CA 90404, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2006)). 
Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity security 
financing to Meximerica Media, Inc., 115 E. Travis <greek-i>800, San 
Antonio, TX 78205. The financing is contemplated for operating expenses 
and for general corporate purposes.

[[Page 13341]]

    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Rustic Canyon Ventures, L.P. and Rustic 
Canyon/Fontis Partners, L.P., both Associates of Rustic Canyon Ventures 
SBIC, L.P., collective own more than ten percent of Meximerica Media, 
Inc. Therefore, Meximerica Media, Inc. is also considered an Associate 
of Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., as defined at 13 CFR 107.50 of 
the SBIC Regulations.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20416.

Jaime Guzm[aacute]n-Fournier,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
 [FR Doc. E7-5082 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 42961.

#### Protest 937124-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of three tube horns similar to those the subject of Abstract 40185. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
# C_2011022EN.01002201.xml

| 22.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/22

---

Corrigendum to the update of the list of border crossing points referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (
  OJ C 316, 28.12.2007, p. 1
  ;
  OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 16
  ;
  OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 9
  ;
  OJ C 200, 6.8.2008, p. 10
  ;
  OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 13
  ;
  OJ C 3, 8.1.2009, p. 10
  ;
  OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 10
  ;
  OJ C 64, 19.3.2009, p. 20
  ;
  OJ C 99, 30.4.2009, p. 7
  ;
  OJ C 229, 23.9.2009, p. 28
  ;
  OJ C 263, 5.11.2009, p. 22
  ;
  OJ C 298, 8.12.2009, p. 17
  ;
  OJ C 74, 24.3.2010, p. 13
  ;
  OJ C 326, 3.12.2010, p. 17
  )

OJ C 316, 28.12.2007, p. 1

OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 16

OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 9

OJ C 200, 6.8.2008, p. 10

OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 13

OJ C 3, 8.1.2009, p. 10

OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 10

OJ C 64, 19.3.2009, p. 20

OJ C 99, 30.4.2009, p. 7

OJ C 229, 23.9.2009, p. 28

OJ C 263, 5.11.2009, p. 22

OJ C 298, 8.12.2009, p. 17

OJ C 74, 24.3.2010, p. 13

OJ C 326, 3.12.2010, p. 17

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 355 of 29 December 2010
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 355 of 29 December 2010

2011/C 22/10

On page 34, under ‘Latvia’, ‘Air borders’:

for:

‘New border crossing point: Takuma lidosta (upon request)’,

read:

‘New border crossing point: Tukuma lidlauks (upon request)’.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6737

OLUDARE OGUNDE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-404-AM)

Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oludare Ogunde, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Oludare Ogunde seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion to vacate and amend the judgment filed

ostensibly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th

Cir. 2004) (holding the certificate of appealability requirement

applies to appeals of denials of motions under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Ogunde has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00845-CV

Sandra JENNINGS,

Appellant

v.

Robert SCOTT, Commissioner of Education, and Boerne Independent School District,

Appellees

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-530

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that Appellees, Robert Scott, Commissioner of Education, 

and Boerne Independent School District, recover their costs of appeal from Appellant Sandra 

Jennings.

SIGNED January 8, 2014.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
Page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Case Number: P040269

 

 
Page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Case Number: P040269

 

 

Remarks:
#### Gary M. Goldberg et al., Appellants, v Patricia Parker, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 81]

—Order and judgment (one paper) Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), *268entered July 12, 1995 which, *inter alia,*denied the petition for a permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the absence of an agreement between the broker and the customer wherein the parties designate New York law to govern the agreement and its enforcement, the matter of timeliness of claims under section 15 of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Code of Arbitration Procedure is for the arbitrator to determine, not the court *(see, Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie,*85 NY2d 193, 202). Here, there was no agreement between the parties; arbitration is sought solely because the broker/dealer is bound by the terms of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure as a registered broker/dealer. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.