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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000904543
<NAME> FAIRFIELD MFG CO INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            6185
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    25296
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (600)
<INVENTORY>                                      18918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   853
<PP&E>                                           70211
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  176370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            38529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4648)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    176370
<SALES>                                         195205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                195205
<CGS>                                           158668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   175536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    90
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               11930
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7649
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3919
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3919
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATIONS


I, William C. McCormick, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Microfield Group, Inc.;

2. 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;

3. 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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. 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 we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  May 20, 2004
                   ---------------------------

      /s/ William C. McCormick
      ----------------------------------------
      William C. McCormick
      Interim Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANDREW ADAM GOMEZ, AKA Andrew

A. Gomez,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 10033

D.C. No.

1:17

- cr

- 00271

- LJO

- SKO

- 2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 10, 2021

San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and CAIN, * * District Judge.

Andrew Adam Gomez appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence

following his conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute methamphetamine

, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 . We

* T his disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable James David Cain, Jr., United States District Judge for

the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Officer Kensey’s inquiries did not

prolong the traffic stop beyond what was reasonably necessary to perform the

permissible tasks outlined in Rodriguez v. United States , 575 U.S. 348, 35 5 (2015).

Kense y stopped Gomez for a legitimate speeding violation . Upon approaching

Gomez’s vehicle, Kensey was overwhelmed by the strong odor of air freshener

.

Kensey noticed two air fresheners, one hanging from each of the front headrests, as

well as numerous fast

- food wrappers and containers littered throughout the car.

When Kensey requested Gomez’s license, Gomez explained that he only had a

permit, but he did not have it with him. Under these circumstances

, the district

court properly concluded that Kensey was justified in continuing to a sk questions

because he was still in the process of completing “tasks tied to the traffic

infraction

, ” which include inquiries that “ensur[e] that vehicles on the road are

operated safely and responsibly.” Id. Cf. United States v. Evans , 786 F.3d 779,

78 6 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding that the officer impermissibly extended the stop by

running ex

- felon registration check unrelated to traffic safety and unsupported by

separate reasonable suspicion) ; United States v. Gorman , 859 F.3d 706, 715 (9th

Cir. 201 7 ) ( “Non

- routine record checks and dog sniffs are paradigm examples of

‘unrelated investigations’ that may not be performed if they prolong a roadside

detention absent independent reasonable suspicion.” ).3

AFFIRMED.
### MOU Oregon vector control association and ODFW

MOORE Beth

to:

Jordan Page, Jack Faulk

09/23/2009 03:35 PM

Show Details

History: This message has been forwarded.

Attached is the Memorandum of Understanding. Hope this is helpful.

From: MOORE Beth

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:24 PM

To: 'page.jordan@epa.gov'; 'Faulk.Jack@epamail.epa.gov'

Subject: Pesticide Use Plan Non Target vector control

Information on Pesticide Use Plan. I will send the Memorandum of Understanding separately.

From: ZARNOWITZ Jill

Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:08 AM

To: MOORE Beth

Subject: RE: Pesticide Use Plan?



### Hello Beth,

I am ODFW’s lead person for vect or control plan reviews and ap provals. I have a couple of

pesticide use plans as e-files. Most are sent as paper documents . I have attached Multnomah

and Washington Counties’ pestici de use plans (PUP), ODFW app roval letters, and annual

reports for the previous year. Both these counties are very comprehensive in defining how

they do vector control. Many vector control districts only submit the control agent (pesticide)

worksheets as their PUP.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Jill

Jill Zarnowitz

Water Policy Coordinator

Fish Division, Oregon De pt. of Fish and Wildlife

3406 Cherry Ave. NE

Salem, OR 97303

Tel. 503-947-6092

Fax 503-947-6070

E-mail: jill.zarnowitz@coho2.dfw.state.or.us

ODFW Website: www.dfw.state.or.us

From: ODFW Info

Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:21 PM

To: Jill Zarnowitz

Subject: FW: Pesticide Use Plan? 

### Page 1 of 2

5/12/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web2145.htmFrom: MOORE Beth [mailto:beth.moore@state.or.us]

Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:11 PM

To: INFO Odfw

Subject: Pesticide Use Plan?

Hi. I was reading on line that ODFW reviews pesticide use plans for vector control under ORS 452.140; ORS

452.245.

Is there a way that I can get a copy of a pesticide use plan for mosquito control that has been reviewed. Who

would I talk to about it?

I will be out of the office until August 5 th but I thought it would be good to send a message. Thank you for your

help.

Beth Moore

General Permits Coordinator

DEQ WQ-Surface Water Management

Phone: (503) 229-6402

Fax: (503) 229-6037 

### Page 2 of 2

5/12/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web2145.htm
#### Tom J. VENTRESS, Director, Department of Industrial Relations for the State of Alabama, and the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of Alabama, and H. D. Lee Company, Inc. v. Shirley A. COKER.

Civ. 1452.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 16, 1978.

Frank D. Marsh, Asst. Gen. Counsel, State of Alabama, Dept, of Industrial Relations, Montgomery, for appellants.

Barry Mansell of Fine, McDowell & Man-sell, Russellville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an unemployment compensation case.

*592The claimant appealed to the circuit court after denial of her claim for compensation by the appeals referee and the board of appeal. The circuit court held the claimant was not disqualified for benefits. The state has appealed.

The dispositive issue is whether the claimant failed to sustain the burden of establishing from the evidence that she was “available for work” within the meaning of the statute. § 25-4-77(3), Code of Ala. 1975. We find the claimant did fail to meet her burden and reverse and remand.

This court has carefully reviewed the record and the only evidence relating to the proof of “availability for work” is the fact that the claimant went to the employment office in Florence prior to leaving her employment and her statement that she needed a job and money. This evidence is insufficient to meet the burden of “available for work.” See *State of Alabama, Department of Industrial Relations and Gold Kist, Inc. v. Thompson,*Ala.Civ.App., 359 So.2d 1158, and cases cited therein.

In view of the above, other issues raised need not be addressed.

Appellants’ “Motion to Modify Record on Appeal” is not well taken and is denied.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-82982, 33-97024, 333-25769, 333-49497, 333-51657, 333-59245, 333-94187, 333-50874, 333-108109, 333-111464, 333-127708, 333-129166) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-69516, 33-69518, 33-69520, 33-84706,
33-88030, 33-92970, 33-92998, 333-04535, 333-29059, 333-29977, 333-29975, 333-34119, 333-56749, 333-56747, 333-80623, 333-38490, 333-91468, 333-91470, 333-106066, 333-117923) of GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2006
relating to the financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form
10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading Selected Financial Data in this Form 10-K.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP      
|Boston, Massachusetts March 14, 2006
Pathfinder 

Aviation 

.XKETOPEa^TtOl'IS 

Aprils, 2012 

To Whom It May Concern: 

This letter is in response to case number 2012AL030004 filed against Pathfinder 

Aviation Inc. by the FAA. rf/VQ ^5 0 ^ S^00«^ 0 

• Regarding thTcbrnpIaTntr ' ^ 

Item i is accepted as correct. 

Item II (1) is accepted as correct. 

Item II [2} is accepted as correct. 

Item II (3) should read: after landing on the Harding Ice Field near Seward Alaska 

the aircraft broke through the snow crust and the tail rotor made contact with the 

snow. Maintenance was flown in to inspect the aircraft for serviceability. After 

inspection, the aircraft was run up with the intention of repositioning the aircraft. 

At this point the number 3 segment of the tail rotor drive shaft failed at the bonded 

adapter. 

Item 11 (4) is accepted as correct 

Item II (5) is accepted as correct 

•IterifII"(6]"Both'the"FAAlDaiT'lJar"son,our POI] and the NTSB (Larry Lewis] were 

notified immediately (within 1 hour] regarding this incident. Mitigating 

circumstances included the termination of our Director of Maintenance the week 

prior to the incident. We had hired a new Director of Maintenance and were waiting 

on his arrival. 

Item III (1) see item II (6] above. 

Item 111 (3] 1 believe a warning letter in this case is more appropriate. Pathfinder 

Aviation Inc has been an exemplary part 135 operator with no prior accidents, 

incidents or violations. A civil penalty of $3500 for filing a late report appears to be 

a bit harsh for a first time offense. 

PO Box 375 Homer, Alaska 99603 

(907) 226-2800 office (907) 226-2801 fax 
Pathfinder Aviation Inc. apologizes for the delayed response to your previous letter. 

After the procedural order was received, contact with the attorney's office in 

Washington DC was attempted several times with no luck. Messages were left and 

Mr. Ira Leibowitz finally returned my call while 1 was travelling out of the country 

on business. \ made contact with Mr. Leibowitz upon my return to get clarification 

on the process and our responsibility. The procedural order and the motion to 

deem allegations admitted are very confusing documents that we needed counsel 

advice to determine the appropriate response. We look forward to your response. 

Mike Fell 

Pathfinder Aviation Inc. 

PO Box 375 Homer, Alaska 99603 

(907) 226-2800 office (907) 226-2801 fax
#### Jack Wyatt WALKER v. LOUISIANA HOSPITAL SERVICE, INC.

No. 7725.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

July 2, 1969.

Arthur Cobb, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Kennon, White & Odom, by John S. White, Jr., Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS, and BAILES, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

Plaintiff is the insured under a Blue Cross Hospitalization policy issued by defendant. He was injured in an accident which occurred in the course and scope of his employment, and his medical expenses were paid by his employer’s workmen’s compensation insurer. Subsequently, he also recovered in tort from the person who caused his injury. The amount recovered included his medical expenses. The workmen’s compensation insurer was reimbursed out of the amount recovered in tort for all compensation payments and medical expenses borne by it.

This suit was brought to recover hospitalization benefits allegedly due under the policy. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff has appealed.

The policy sued on contains the following exclusionary clause:

> “No services or benefits shall be provided for:

> “(a) Cases covered, in whole or in part, by workmen’s compensation, occupational disease, or disability benefits laws.”

*495Plaintiff claims, however, that since the compensation insurer was reimbursed for all amounts paid by it, he was not compensated for his injury by workmen’s compensation insurance, and therefore not covered by the workmen’s compensation law.

We cannot agree with plaintiff’s position. The fact that his compensation insurer may have been reimbursed out of his tort recovery does not change the fact that he was subject to the provisions of the law, and received benefits pursuant thereto. He was, therefore, covered by the law, and the above exclusionary provisions apply.

We recognize the principle that ambiguities must be construed against the writer of a contract. We do not see any ambiguity in the above quoted provision.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, at plaintiff’s cost.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Connie HOPEN, Petitioner, v. Edward J. STACK, Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-260.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

April 25, 1969.

Habeas corpus denied.
No. 00-779.

#### Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. *v.*Polston.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**98 KA 08-00347**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LATISHA WEBB, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM G. PIXLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered November 21, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to consider relevant factors during the sentencing proceeding, such as her drug addiction, and thus erred in imposing an enhanced sentence. Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground and thus has failed to preserve her contention for our review ( see People v Reed
, 78 AD3d 1534; People v Ortiz , 43 AD3d 1348, lv denied 9 NY3d 1008; People v Mariani , 6 AD3d 1206, lv denied 3 NY3d 643), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject defendant’s further challenge to the severity of the sentence and decline her request to reduce the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; see generally People v Farrar , 52 NY2d 302).

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001077670
<NAME> TRANSDIGM INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             208
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                       503
<INVENTORY>                                     31,327
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,394
<PP&E>                                          47,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,905
<BONDS>                                        256,823
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,499
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       102,097
<OTHER-SE>                                   (227,795)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,635
<SALES>                                         33,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,734
<CGS>                                           18,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,375
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**INSWEB CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InsWeb Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Mark P. Guthrie, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to InsWeb Corporation, and will be retainedby InsWeb Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

 
| /s/  Mark P. Guthrie                                                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark P. Guthrie  President and Chief Executive Officer  Dated: May 13, 2003 |

 

----