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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FARGO
ELECTRONICS, INC. BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT
PER SHARE DATA.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,509
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (300)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,777
<PP&E>                                           6,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,312)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,209
<BONDS>                                         60,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           34,733<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                     75,000
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                   (124,966)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,094
<SALES>                                         54,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,907
<CGS>                                           28,928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (372)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,575
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,485
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,485
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (37.56)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (37.56)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $4,733,000 OF ACCRUED DIVIDENDS.
<F2>REFLECTS $2,620,000 OF ACCRUED DIVIDENDS ON REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK AND
$67,000,000 OF ACCRETION ON CONVERTIBLE PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.44
                                                                   -------------

                                   TERM NOTE

$3,000,000                                                      December 8, 2000


     For value received, the undersigned, RF MONOLITHICS, INC., a Delaware
corporation (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay on the Termination Date
under the Credit Agreement (defined below), to the order of WELLS FARGO BUSINESS
CREDIT, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "Lender"), at its main office in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at any other place designated at any time by the
holder hereof, in lawful money of the United States of America and in
immediately available funds, the principal sum of $3,000,000 together with
interest on the principal amount hereunder remaining unpaid from time to time,
computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a 360-day year,
from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid at the rate from time to time
in effect under the Credit and Security Agreement of even date herewith (as the
same may hereafter be amended, supplemented or restated from time to time, the
"Credit Agreement") by and between the Lender and the Borrower.  The principal
hereof and interest accruing thereon shall be due and payable as provided in the
Credit Agreement.  This Note may be prepaid only in accordance with the Credit
Agreement.

     This Note is issued pursuant, and is subject, to the Credit Agreement,
which provides, among other things, for acceleration hereof.  This Note is the
Term Note referred to in the Credit Agreement.  This Note is secured, among
other things, pursuant to the Credit Agreement and the Security Documents as
therein defined, and may now or hereafter be secured by one or more other
security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments or other instruments
or agreements.

     The Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection, including
attorneys' fees and legal expenses in the event this Note is not paid when due,
whether or not legal proceedings are commenced.

     Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of dishonor and protest are
expressly waived.

                              RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

                              By /s/ David M. Kirk
                                 -----------------------------
                                    David M. Kirk, President
#### JOSEPH McLAUGHLIN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. GARDEN STATE CONTAINER CORP., RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Vaccaro & Osborne*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Lewis Sheps*and *Mr. Aaron Gordon*for the respondent.

March 21, 1967.

Denied.
No. 59086.

protest 188453-K (New York).

#### Edwin Jay, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Greatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Wilbur F. Storey & another v. Clinton G. Bird.

"Where the maker and endorser of commercial paper are sued jointly under the statute, and one is defaulted and issue joined as to the other, it is competent for plaintiff to have damages assessed against the defaulted party, hy the jury sworn to try the issue joined as to the other, and upon their verdict and assessment to proceed to a joint judgment against "both.

Damages on affirmance of judgment.

*Heard May*31st.

*Decided June 5th.*

Error to Wayne Circuit.

Defendant in error brought suit in the court below, against William Hale, and Wilbur F. Storey, on a promissory note made by Hale, payable to the order of Story, and by.him endorsed, and which was declared upon as the only cause of action. Story appeared and pleaded to the declaration, and Hale suffered default. A rule was afterwards entered, making the default adsolute, and referring it to a jury to assess the plaintiff’s damages. A jury was subsequently impannelled to try the issue as to Storey, and assess the damages as to Piale, and upon their verdict and assessment, judgment was rendered for plaintiff against both. Defendants brought error, claiming that, by the default of one defendant and issue as to the other, the action was severed, and the subsequent proceedings musj; then be the same as if action had been brought separately against the maker and endorser; and also that in case of default in an action on a promissory note, the damages must be assessed by the clerk, and not by a jury,

*Holbrooh <&*Bishop, for plaintiffs in error.

*B. B. BuffieM,*for defendant in error.

*317Manning J.:

It was argued that by the default of Hale, the maker of the note, to plead to the declaration, and the plea put in by Storey, the endorser, the joint proceedings against them were severed. We do not so read the statute, which would be of little avail if it was in the power of defendants, after the plaintiff had elected to proceed against them jointly, by any act of theirs to' sever the proceedings. It is provided by §4170 of Compiled [Laws, that the plaintiff may in certain cases sever the proceedings. It does not, however, make it obligatory on him to do so, on the happening of the contingency in which it may be done, but leaves it optional with him to do it or not, as he may think most for his interest. The sole object of the section is to prevent unnecessary delay against a part of defendants, by reason of a defense interposed by others. The plaintiff might have proceeded against Hale alone, but it was for him to elect whether he would do so or not. He had a right to a joint judgment against both, if he could establish the’several liability of each; and the order for the jury that tried the issue, on Storey’s plea, to assess the damages on the interlocutory judgment against Hale, was correct. The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

*Duffield*moved for the allowance of damages, under § 5612 of Compiled Laws, for the delay caused by the writ of error, which he claimed was brought on frivolous grounds.

The Court, not being satisfied of a want of good faith in bringing the writ, denied the motion.
#### Joan Miller, Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

June 3, 1981:

Argued April *9, 1981,*

before Judges Mencer, Craig and Paldadino, sitting as a panel of three.

*John J. Morgan,*for petitioner.

*Louis G. Cocheres,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Ward T. Williams,*Chief Counsel, and *Harvey Bartle, III,*Attorney General, for respondent.

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

Petitioner Joan Miller, an employee of the Department of Transportation, has appealed from an order *447of the Department of Transportation sustaining her demotion by the department from Clerical Supervisor II to Clerk-typist I.

Miller charges she was demoted for political reasons, thus violating her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under *Branti v. Finkel,*445 U.S. 507 (1980) and *Elrod v. Burns,*427 U.S. 347 (1976). Those decisions protect public employees if they can show that a change of status, such as discharge, was due solely to the employee’s political affiliation. Here there is substantial evidence from the department’s witnesses, annual evaluation reports, and a memorandum citing warnings to petitioner for frequent personal phone calls interfering with her job performance, that petitioner’s demotion was for job-related factors.

Petitioner also contends that her due process rights were violated because the Commonwealth attorney acting as legal counsel to the hearing examiner came from the same agency as the attorney representing the respondent department.

Where two attorneys of the same agency appear in different roles in the same proceeding, due process is not per se violated. *See Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors v. Insurance Department,*50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 204, 412 A.2d 675 (1980). The focus is whether the function performed by the two are adequately separate so that there is no actual prejudice.

In a virtually identical case, we held the functions of one staff attorney as prosecutor before the Board of Nursing Examiners and two other staff attorneys acting as counsel for the board to be adequately separate. *Tighe v. State Board of Nurse Examiners,*40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 367, 397 A.2d 1261 (1979).

Hence, after reviewing the proceedings before the hearing examiner in this case, we cannot find an un*448constitutional commingling of the attorneys’ functions. Petitioner has not specified any actual prejudice. *Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Thorp,*25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 295, 361 A.2d 497 (1976).

The order is affirmed.

Order

And Now, June 3, 1981, the order of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in the case of In Re Joan Miller, dated June 10, 1980, is affirmed.
#### Ann Eliza Slosson and others, *as Executrices, Respondents, v.*The Trustees of the Baptist Church of Lindley, *Appellants.*

Judgment affirmed. Mem. by Haight, J.
#### Fletcher A. Mead, *Respondent, v.*The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, *Appellant.*

— Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Macomber, J.
#### REVERE COPPER COMPANY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, Appellant, *v.*ANTHONY W. DIMMOCK, Respondent.

*Costs of appeal*— when *the successful party is entitled to them as a matter of right.*

A judgment entered by tbe plaintiff in an action for the recovery of money only, upon a verdict for more than fifty dollars, was reversed by the General Term and a new trial granted, with costs to the defendant to abide the event. The Court of Appeals reversed this order and affirmed the judgment, with costs.

*B.eld,*that the plaintiff was entitled to include in his bill of costs the items allowed by the Code for services rendered and disbursements incurred upon the appeal to the General Term.

Appeal from au order made at a Special Term denying a motion for the readjustment of costs.

*Edward B. Whitney,*for the appellant.

*George Putnam Smith,*for the respondent.

*300Daniels, J.:

The plaintiff obtained a verdict exceeding in amount the sum oí fifty dollars in an action for the recovery of money only. The judgment upon it was reversed by the General Term and a new trial ordered, with costs to the defendants to abide the event. From this order an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals where it was reversed and the judgment on the verdict was affirmed, with costs.

In the adjustment of the plaintiff’s costs the items for services and disbursements on the appeal to the General Term were excluded. This denial of these costs.was erroneously made, for the plaintiff was entitled to costs, as a matter of course, upon the recovery of the verdict obtained in the case. (Code of Civil Pro., § 3228, sub. 4.) And when costs are so awarded section 3251 of the Code has prescribed the precise items which shall be allowed, and by subdivision 4 of this section the rejected items have been included.

It was not requisite that in the final determination these costs should be in direct terms awarded, for the law had declared the right to them to follow the favorable decision which was made. *(Ayers*v. *Western R. R. Co.,*49 N. Y., 660.) The case of *Howell*v. *Van Siclen*(8 Hun, 524) was that of a reversal and a new trial ordered, where the costs have been made discretionary; and the disposition of *Matter of Protestant Episcopal School*(86 N. Y., 396), and the *Union Trust Company*v. *Whiton*(78 id., 491), were equally discretionary in this respect.

Neither of them, therefore, is applicable to the case now before the court; and the same observation is equally as pertinent to that of the *First National Bank of Meadville*v. *The Fourth National Bank*(84 N. Y., 469).

The plaintiff had a lawful right to the costs and disbursements now claimed by him. The order should therefore be reversed, with costs, and an order directing a readjustment in which the allowance of these controverted items shall be made.

Davis, P. J., and Macomber, J., concurred.

Order reversed and readjustment ordered, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 26, 2012

t0319 

# Order

March 26, 2012

144081

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144081 COA: 297574 Ingham CC: 09-000731-FC RUBEN CHE ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 27, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Samuel Jackson, *Respondent, v.*The Union Ferry Company of Brooklyn, *Appellant.*

— Order reversed, motion granted removing action from this court to Kings county, costs to abide event.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0931 SAT Date: 10/22/2013

Print Date: 5/5/2014

Related cases : Health related cases: Ecotox related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR-S,E MUTA ONCO DEVEL LIVER KIDNEY SENS-S,L AQUATOX -A,C
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0931 FATE: Solid with MP = 57 C (E) log Kow = 3.44 (E)S = 39.4 mg/L at 25 C (E) VP = 1.0E-3 torr at 25 C (E) BP = 300 C (E) H = 1.73E-6 (E) log Koc = 2.70 (E) log Fish BCF = 1.94 (E) log Fish BAF = 1.41 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 500 hrs Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 230 da Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 2.9 hr via OH radical Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 160 hr via ozone PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil through the skin for the neat material, moderate through the skin for the material in solution, and moderate through the lung and GI tract, based on physical/chemical properties. Expect Michael addition to the acrylate. There are concerns for skin and eye irritation, developmental, liver, and kidney toxicities, respiratory and dermal sensitization, mutagenicity, and oncogenicity from the acrylate.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.3 daphnid 48-h LC50 1.7 green algal 96-h EC50 0.30 fish

_ chronic value 0.002 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.068

algal

_ chronic value 0.11

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for acrylates; SAR chemical class = acrylate; MW 220; solid with mp unknown (P); log Kow = 3.44 (EPI); S = 40 mg/L at 20 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 1

SARs acrylates SAR Class acrylate Ecotox Category Acrylates/Methacrylates

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The
undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) and
Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting officer) of China New Energy Group
Company. This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q/A of China New Energy Group Company for the six month period
ended September 30, 2009.
 
 The
undersigned certifies that the report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of China New Energy Group
Company as of September 30, 2009.
 
 This
Certification is executed as of August 17, 2010.
 
 By: /s/Yangkan ChongName:Yangkan ChongTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)By: /s /Eric TAK Shing
      YUName: Eric TAK Shing
      YUTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China New Energy Group Company and will be retained by China New Energy Group
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT R ONALD A. W ELC H,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B ILL LATOUR , Esquire ,

R e a l -party -in-inte re stAppe lle e , a nd NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-56544 D.C . No. 5:11-c v-00740-DFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dougla s F. M c C orm ic k, M a gistra te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 7, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , W . FLETC HER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAR 09 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pla intiff R ona ld W e lc h tim e l y a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r awarding
a ttorne y fe e s to re a l -party -in-inte re st B ill La Tour, Pla intiff’ s la wy e r in a n unde rly ing Soc ia l Se c urity be ne fits c a se . W e va c a te the judgm e nt a nd re m and. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly ide ntifie d the le ga l sta

nda rd for de t e rm ining the
am ount of fe e s to a

ward unde r 42 U.S.C . § 406(b) for re pre se n ting a Soc ia l Se c urity c la im a nt in c ourt: The distric t c ourt m ust c o nc lude tha

t the fe e s gra

nte d
are re a sona

ble unde r the sta

nda rds se t forth in Gisbre c ht v. B arnha rt, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), a nd in C rawford v. Astrue , 586 F.3d 1142 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). B ut the d istric t c o urt did not c om p ly with C rawford’ s re quire m e nt tha t the c ourt

" provide a

c onc ise but c le a

r e xpla nation of its re a sons for the fe e award." 586 F.3d
a t 1152 (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om i tte d). A c le ar e xpla

nation is pa

rtic ula rly im porta nt he re , in light of the

unusua l
c irc um s ta nc e s of this c a se . C ounse l m ispla c e d Pla i ntiff’ s c a se file , whic h m ay have a ffe c te d the duration of thec a se . M ore ove r, c ounse l worke d disproportional ly

fe w hours c om

pa re d to the la

rge fe e awarde d. On re m and, the distric t c o urt sha ll e n

unc i a te how thoseand othe r re le va nt c irc um sta

nc e s a ffe c t the
c a lc ulat ion of a

re a s ona ble fe e . V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D . The pa rtie s sha l l be a

r the ir own c osts on
a ppe a l.
2
#### Julian Gifford, *Respondent, v.*Henry Waterman, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Learned,
Subject: Meeting with Portland Cement Association (PCA) and Holcim

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , RTP, NC Date: August 31 , 2010 Participants: Industry Andy O’Hare, PCA * Hector Ybanez, Holcim Curtis L esslie, Ash Grove * Mike Pelan, Lafarge * Dan Nugent, Buzzi * Robert Crawford, Consultant to PCA * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Steve Silverman * Keith Barnett RTIInternational Mike Laney Breda Munoz *By telephone The Portland Cement Association (PCA) met with EPA and pre sented information on a statistical analysis of the mercury emissions data using the 30 - day averages instead of the dail y emission values. They

also discussed the use of PM compliance test data that has been collected for all portland cement kilns. Handout s were provided including a meeting agenda and tables illustrating the results of their statistical anal ys is. The y are attached to these meeting notes. Following the meeting with PCA, Hector Ybanez of Holcim presented issues associated with the final rul e that were of concern to Holcim. They included:

- Determination of clinker production - Alternate PM limit for kilns with an alkali by pass - Operation and Maintenance Plan submission - Use of scrubbers for SO2 and HCl control - Use of Affirmative Defense - Dat a acquisition sy stems - Use of CEMS for THC - PM CEMS requirements in NESHAP and NSPS - Use of consecutive days for startup and shutdowns - Modifications under NSPS - Use of CEMS for 90% SO2 option