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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial data esxtracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,809,166
<SECURITIES>                                   191,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    12,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,155,869
<PP&E>                                         280,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                 172,133
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,411,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          351,160
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       407
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,990,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,411,115
<SALES>                                        751,909
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               751,909
<CGS>                                          65,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,275,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               95,873
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,676,235)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,676,235)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,676,235)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.54)
        


</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20448

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-904-4

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

January 29, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Rodriguez appeals from his 60-month sentence

following his guilty plea to aiding and abetting the possession

with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues

that the district court clearly erred in determining that the

safety valve provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 did not apply.
No. 02-20448

-2-

When Rodriguez was arrested, he was seated in the rear

passenger seat of a van with a loaded semiautomatic pistol resting

in plain view within his reach on top of a bag of marijuana in the

seat next to him. Relying on United States v. Wilson, 105 F.3d

219, 222 (5th Cir. 1997), Rodriguez contends that the safety valve

provision was applicable because he did not actually possess the

weapon and he may not be held responsible for the conduct of his

co-defendants, who were also seated in the van. Rodriguez's

reliance on Wilson is misplaced because the record shows at least

that he had joint and constructive possession of the firearm, and

we conclude that Rodriguez has not shown that the district court's

decision not to apply the safety valve was clearly erroneous. See

Wilson, 105 F.3d at 222; see also United States v. McKnight, 953

F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1992) (firearms found in plain view

supported conclusion that defendant had constructive possession);

United States v. Vasquez, 161 F.3d 909, 910, 913 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001077637
<NAME>                        THE BRALORNE MINING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        NOV-30-1999       NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>           JUN-01-2000       JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>             AUG-31-2000       AUG-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1                 1
<CASH>                            197                0
<SECURITIES>                        0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                       0                0
<ALLOWANCES>                        0                0
<INVENTORY>                         0                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  197                0
<PP&E>                              1                0
<DEPRECIATION>                      0                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    198                0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           7,770                0
<BONDS>                             0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0                0
<PREFERRED>                         0                0
<COMMON>                       27,012                0
<OTHER-SE>                   (34,584)                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      198                0
<SALES>                             0                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    0                0
<CGS>                               0                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,665              943
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     0                0
<INCOME-TAX>                        0                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0                0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0                0
<CHANGES>                           0                0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,665)            (943)
<EPS-BASIC>                         0                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0                0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
1996 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NTL INCORPORATED.  THE SCHEDULE IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           445,884,000
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     32,210,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (3,870,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  66,817,000
<PP&E>                                         1,582,875,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (123,347,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,454,611,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            298,939,000
<BONDS>                                        1,732,168,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             321,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       327,793,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,454,611,000
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 228,343,000
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    144,315,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 114,992,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               137,032,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (246,801,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (7,653,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (254,454,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (254,454,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (8.20)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (8.20)<F1>

<FN>
<F1>RESTATED TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
    STANDARDS NO.128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE"
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### Harry DAVIS, Petitioner, v. EDWIN M. GREEN, INC., Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co. and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 39492.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 7, 1970.

L. Barry Keyfetz, Ser, Greenspahn & Keyfetz, Miami, for petitioner.

Roland Gomez, Kates & Ress, North Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

ADKINS, Justice.

Petitioner-claimant suffered an eye injury. Benefits for 23 per cent disability were paid voluntarily by respondent employer. Petitioner contended additional benefits were merited, and sought these. Twice petitioner scheduled workmen’s compensation hearings to establish his claim which both times were unilaterally can-celled by the employer. The employer’s physician declined to discuss the case with claimant’s counsel. A third hearing was scheduled at claimant’s request, and the employer’s physician was deposed, giving evidence justifying 100 per cent disability; after deposition and before the hearing, the employer conceded that the additional benefits were due, and commenced payment.

The employer resisted payment of attorneys’ fees to claimant’s counsel for the additional benefits, contending that the additional payments were voluntarily made, and no fees were entitled under Fla.Stat. § 440.34(1), F.S.A. Employer contended *5it commenced the payments as soon as it was informed they were due. The Judge of Industrial Claims concluded that no attorneys’ fees were due. The Industrial Relations Commission affirmed.

 We reverse. The Florida Workmen’s Compensation Law does not contemplate that an employer may insulate itself from knowledge that benefits may be due to a claimant and then, when its wall of willful ignorance is breached by claimant’s attorney, commence “voluntary” payments and resist payment of attorneys’ fees. As this Court stated in Thompson v. W. T. Edwards Tuberculosis Hospital, 164 So.2d 13 (Fla.1964).

> “Our conclusion harmonizes with the philosophy of workmen’s compensation to the end that an employee shall receive the benefits to which he is entitled with reasonable promptness, consistent with the employer’s right to make a reasonable investigation regarding his liability.” (p. 15)

An employer who does not exercise his right to investigate, and who forces the burden of proving liability on the claimant to the extent the claimant requires assistance of an attorney for depositions or other actions, is not protected from payment of attorneys’ fees by ignorance resulting from failure to investigate liability.

The decision of the Industrial Relations Commission is quashed. This cause is remanded to the Commission for further remand to the Judge of Industrial Claims for the purpose of determining the amount of and awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 4 6 5

- C V

Style: Darrell Julian and Ted Hennis v. Cadence McShane Construction

Company, LLC a nd Pinpoint Commercial LP, General Partner of PPC

GP, LLC

Date motion filed * : June 11

, 201 5

Type of motion: Motion f o r E xten sion of T ime to F ile Clerk’s Record

Party filing motion: Appellant s

Document to be filed: Clerk’s Records

Is appeal accelerated? Yes.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: May 28

, 201 5

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due D ate: May 28 , 201 5

Date Requested: N/A (15 days or such time as required by trial clerk)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

On June 1, 2015, the Clerk of this Court sent the trial clerk a notice that the clerk’s

record had not been timely filed, and if the record wa s not filed within 10 days, to

request an extension of time. Accordingly, a ppellant s ’ motion for a 15

- day extension

of time to file the clerk’s r ecord is dismissed because the trial clerk is responsible for

filing i t

, provided appellants have requested and paid for it, and this Court may extend

the deadline to file it if requested by the clerk

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3 (a)(2), (c).

Judge’ s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting

Date: June 18, 2015
# App2
#### Bernard LEVY, Appellant, v. Jack SWERDLIN and Sophia V. Swerdlin, his wife, Appellees.

No. 70-392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 1970.

Hilery F. Silverman, Miami, for appellant.

Sanford M. Swerdlin, Clewiston, for ap-pellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346, 45 So. 1011; McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 781; Zide v. Arthur, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 747.
# L_2005283EN.01000101.xml

| 26.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 283/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 283/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 20 September 2005

concerning the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union

(2005/735/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 310 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 300(2), first subparagraph, and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the 2003 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, was signed on behalf of the European Community and its Member States on 31 May 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, was signed on behalf of the European Community and its Member States on 31 May 2005.

| (2) | The Protocol should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Protocol should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Community and its Member States.

The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision (2).

Done at Brussels, 20 September 2005.

For the Council

The President

M. BECKETT

---

(1)  Assent delivered on 6 September 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

(2)  See page 3 of this Official Journal.

2

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                                       
                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 333-70879) pertaining to the Dal-Tile International Inc. 1990 
Stock Option Plan (As Amended and Restated) of our report dated February 10, 
1999 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of 
Dal-Tile International Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the 
year ended January 1, 1999.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 15, 1999
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CHEMI S.P.A, LORENZO DE FERRA, AND PIETRO MASSARDO,

Appellants,

v.

DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee,

and

FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.P.A., Appellee.

____________________

2010-1514

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Reexamination No. 95/000, 138.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT S. S ILVER , Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein, Cohen & Pokotilow, LTD, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, forappellants. With him on the brief was J OSEPH F.

M URPHY

.

R AYMOND T. C HEN , Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, for appellee. With him on the brief were R OBERT
J. M CMANUS and N ATHAN K. K ELLY , Associate Solicitors.

E UGENE T. C. P EREZ , Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP, of Falls Church, Virginia, argued for appellee Fidia

Farmaceutici S.P.A. With him on the brief was

M ARYANNE A RMSTRONG

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (B RYSON

, M AYER , and G AJARSA

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

June 8, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk
Exhibit (b)(1)

**BYLAWS**

**OF**

**DWS INVESTMENTS VIT FUNDS**

 

**Dated as of April 1, 2008**

 

**ARTICLE 1**

**Declaration of Trust and Principal Office**

 

**1.1  Declaration of Trust.**  These Bylaws are adopted pursuant to Section 2.9 of the Declaration of Trust, as from time to time in effect (the "Declaration”), of the Massachusetts business trust established by the Declaration (the "Trust") and shall be subject to the terms of the Declaration.  Any capitalized term not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning given to such term in the Declaration.

 

**1.2  Principal Office of the Trust.**  The principal office of the Trust in Massachusetts shall be located in Boston, Massachusetts, or such other place as shall be determined by the Trustees from time to time.  The Trust may have offices in such other places within or without the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as the Trustees may from time to time determine. 

 

**ARTICLE 2**

**Trustees**

 

**2.1 Chairman; Vice Chairman.**  The Trustees may elect from their own number a Chairman to hold office until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified or until his earlier death, resignation, removal or disqualification.  If the Chairman is present at a meeting of the Trustees or Shareholders, the Chairman shall preside at such meeting.  The Trustees may also elect from their own number a Vice Chairman to hold office until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified or until his earlier death, resignation, removal or disqualification.  If the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Trustees or Shareholders, the Vice Chairman, if any, shall preside at such meeting.  The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall each have such other duties and powers as the Trustees may from time to time determine, but neither shall have individual authority to actfor the Trust as an officer of the Trust.

 

**2.2  Regular Meetings.**  Regular meetings of the Trustees may be held without call or notice at such places (including for these purposes, by means of conference telephone circuit, video conferencing or similar communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other as provided for in the Declaration) as the Trustees may from time to time determine.

 

**2.3  Special Meetings.**  Special meetings of the Trustees may be held at any time and at any place (including for these purposes, by means of conference telephone circuit, video conferencing or similar communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other as provided for in the Declaration) designated in the call of the meeting when called by the Chairman, the President or the Treasurer or by two or more Trustees, sufficient notice thereof as described in Section 2.4 below being given to each Trustee by the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary or by the person calling the meeting.

 

----
### The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the rep ort and recommendationof the Honorable H. David Young, United State s Magistrate for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-3570

___________ James McAlphin, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the S. Rogers, L.P.N.; Nurse Parker; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Dr. Thomas, Delta Regional Unit; * [UNPUBLISHED] PHP Healthcare Corporation, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 5, 1996 Filed: June 11, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
James McAlphin appeals from the district court's order dismissin g 1 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the parties' brief s and the record (including the hearing transcript), we conclude the distric t cou rt correctly determined that McAlphin failed to establish tha t defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.