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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</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>                                           4,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,024
<PP&E>                                         729,746
<DEPRECIATION>                                 264,180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 480,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,435
<BONDS>                                        444,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   480,849
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,908
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                73,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,592
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,592
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99


</TABLE>
#### Claudie Dewey Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. KARST, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 41140.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
259 La. 56

#### PLACID OIL COMPANY v. D. Crawford YOUNG et al.

No. 51444.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1971.

In re: Emerson Group applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Natchi-toches. 246 So.2d 306.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: March 17, 2016 521090 

________________________________

In the Matter of KHARY BEKKA,

Petitioner,

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting

Commissioner of Corrections

and Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 19, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Khary Bekka, Ossining, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of

violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

When a correction officer approached petitioner's cell, she

observed him masturbating. After ordering him to stop,

petitioner continued and made sexually suggestive comments to the

officer. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior

report with engaging in lewd conduct, refusing a direct order and

interfering with an employee. Following a tier III disciplinary

hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of interfering with an

employee, but guilty of the remaining charges. This

determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, resulting in
-2- 521090 

this CPLR article 78 proceeding.1

We confirm. Petitioner was afforded a fair hearing. 

Contrary to petitioner's claims, the Hearing Officer did allow

petitioner to question the author of the misbehavior report as to

whether she had ever previously observed such behavior by

petitioner, and the Hearing Officer did not act improperly by

limiting petitioner's further questioning of the witness to

issues related to matters relevant to the incident in question

(see Matter of Fero v Prack, 110 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2013]; Matter

of Toliver v Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision, 104

AD3d 981, 982 [2013]). Further, the fact that the Hearing

Officer rejected petitioner's testimony is not indicative of

bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner's

claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see

Matter of Inoa v Smith, 115 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2014]; Matter of

White v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1582, 1583 [2012]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

1 Although the petition raised the issue of substantial

evidence and, accordingly, the proceeding was properly

transferred to this Court, petitioner has abandoned such argument

by failing to raise it in his brief (see Matter of Davila v

Prack, 113 AD3d 978, 978 n [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 904 [2014]). 
-3- 521090 

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,462,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,140,685
<PP&E>                                         857,750
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,274,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,287,112
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        9,000,516
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,001
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,017,336)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,274,344
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,985,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,969,801)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,969,801)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,969,801)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### FLORIDA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Pauline STANLEY, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 39625.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 8, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
ARS HomeCrop Production and ProtectionCrop Protection and QuarantineResearch

----

Program Team
- Kevin Hackett
- Joseph Munyaneza
- Tim Rinehart
- Roy Scott
- Steve Young
- Robert (Bob) Miller
Related Information
2022 Research Highlights
- Controlling Insect Pests
- Combating Citrus Greening
- Developing New Crop Varieties with Enhanced Traits and Disease Resistance 
- Improving Pasture and Rangeland Management
- Mitigating Climate Change Impacts
- Reducing Labor and Advancing Precision Agriculture
Program Planning
-                 Strategic Vision             
-                 Action Plan 2015-2020             
-                 Action Plan 2020-2025             
-                 Action Plan 2025-2030             
Program Reports
-                 Annual Reports             
-                 Areawide Pest Management Program             
Project Information
- List of Projects in this Program
- List of Project Annual Reports in this program

**Listed below are the Annual Reports for currently active projects directly assigned to this National Program.**
( 

n.. An Aut!:ority to con:::t:-uct &h3.ll expirP. and th~ a.pr:lic:.:lti<>n sh:1ll 

be c<>nc,;J.l!d t'.:o ::·e;::r::; !'ro:a the C.R -::e of issu<>.ncc of the aut!-.ori t:r tr. ccn-

.::~ru:. t. 

b. An u:plic:ttio::. :~;; pcr:-:it to operate ~:d.stiur; equi;rr.·~r.'c. ~;C.all be
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of NetScout Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anil K. Singhal, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Anil K. Singhal                            
|Anil K. Singhal                                
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman

February 4, 2011
#### Joseph O. KEPHART, Deceased, Petitioner, v. CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI et al., Respondents.

No. 41175.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 6, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-20726

Summary Calendar

MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

M/V HENRIETTE MAERSK; A/S D/S SVENDBORG &

D S AF 1912 A/S; A. P. MOLLER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-1480)

June 7, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mitsubishi International Corporation (Plaintiff) purchased a

quantity of Butadiene in Brindisi, Italy and arranged for it to be

shipped to Houston, Texas aboard the vessel M/V HENRIETTE MAERSK.

Because the loading and unloading of Butadiene must be accomplished

in a closed system, the loading in Brindisi, Italy was not visible

and open to inspection. Pursuant to agreement between the parties,2

the bills of lading covering this shipment would not be marked

"clean on board" and in fact the bills of lading as issued each

contained "an apparent good order clause." Upon arrival in

Houston, the Butadiene was determined to be "off-specification as

to dimer content." Mitsubishi sued the vessel and its owners

alleging that contamination occurred during transit from Italy to

Texas. After a one-day bench trial, the district court entered

detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which determined

that Mitsubishi had failed to prove that the Butadiene cargo was

delivered to the vess el "in good order and condition."

Accordingly, the district court entered Final Judgment in favor of

the vessel and its owners and Mitsubishi timely appeals.

We h ave carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. We are

unable to conclude that the district court abused its discretion as

to the evidentiary rulings it made during trial. Likewise, we are

unable to conclude that any of the factual findings made by the

district court were clearly erroneous. The district court’s

conclusions of law were not erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the

Final Judgment of the district court entered on July 21, 1998.

AFFIRMED

.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27496]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA, Inc. Special Committee 186; Automatic Dependent 
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B)

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for 
Special Committee 186 meeting to be held November 3-4, 1997, starting 
at 9 a.m. on Monday, November 3. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 
Inc., 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will include: (1) Chairman's Introductory Remarks/Review 
of Meeting Agenda; (2) Review and Approval of Minutes of the Previous 
Meeting; (3) Ballot Review and Approval of Guidance for Initial 
Implementation of Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (Only written 
comments will be considered); (4) Other Business; (5) Date and Place of 
Next Meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web 
site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 9, 1997.
Terry R. Hannah,
Deputy Director, Office of System Architecture and Investment Analysis, 
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 97-27496 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
EXHIBIT 4.4

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN OFTARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made effective May 30, 2002, by TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (the Company), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Country of Israel.

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (the Plan), which was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on March 10, 1999, and approved be the stockholders of the Company on July 20, 1999.

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of shares which may be issued as stock incentives under the Plan.

WHEREAS, the Companys shareholders, at the Annual General Meeting held on June 27, 2002, approved an increase of 500,000 of the Companys Ordinary Shares to the maximum number of shares which may be issued as stock incentives under the Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of May 30, 2002, by deleting from paragraph 2 the number 800,000 and substituting therefore 2,100,000.

Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this First Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed, effective as of the day and year first above written.

| | TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.                   
| | ------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                       
| | By: /s/ Kevin Connelly                                
| |                                                       
| | Title: Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA96-141-004]


Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation; Notice of Filing

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 11, 1997, Rochester Gas & Electric 
Corporation tendered for filing its refund report in the above-
referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before October 16, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26909 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Fausta Cecile DEVALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claude Pierson DEVALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 62069.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 14, 1978.

JOINT MOTION AND ORDER

On joint motion of Fausta Cecile Devall and Claude Pierson Devall, through undersigned counsel, and upon suggesting to the court that the parties to this proceeding have decided to attempt a reconciliation and desire that the writ granted herein to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, be recalled because the parties have amicably resolved their differences.

IT IS ORDERED that the writ of review [Granted in La., 358 So.2d 949] to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen, in this matter be, and the same is hereby recalled.
# L_2005304EN.01001601.xml

| 23.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 304/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 304/16

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 November 2005

appointing a French member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2005/810/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2002/758/EC, Euratom of 17 September 2002 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2002 to 20 September 2006 (1),

Whereas a member's seat on the abovementioned Committee has fallen vacant, following the resignation of Mr Claude CAMBUS, of which the Council was informed on 25 July 2005,

Having regard to the nomination submitted by the French Government,

Having obtained the opinion of the European Commission,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Georges LIAROKAPIS is hereby appointed a member of the European Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Claude CAMBUS for the remainder of his term of office, namely until 20 September 2006.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 November 2005.

For the Council

The President

T. JOWELL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 253, 21.9.2002, p. 9.

1

---
#### Richard SING ENG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-131.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 7, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the revocation of appellant’s probation is affirmed. However, the judgment and sentence of the court, while indicating that appellant is to receive credit for all time served in jail, does not specifically set forth the amount of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

In addition, the order of revocation of probation must be corrected. The affidavit filed against appellant charged him with two violations of condition (e) and one violation of condition (c). At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the trial court found that the allegations as to condition (e) had been sustained, but made no mention of the allegation as to condition (c). Yet the written order revoking appellant’s probation recites that appellant violated both conditions (c) and (e). Since the court’s order of revocation enlarged the announced findings, the order must be corrected to conform to the findings of the court made at the hearing.

Remanded for correction of the sentence and the order of revocation of probation; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALFONSO TIJERINA,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY DISTRICT DIRECTOR U.S.

IMMIGRATION,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 13-55655

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10805-DOC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Alfonso Tijerina appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

NOV 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis,

see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

In his petition, Tijerina contended that he was improperly removed from the

United States without receiving a hearing on his claim for relief under the

Convention Against Torture. The district court properly declined to entertain

Tijerina’s petition because the sole means to challenge an order of removal is by

filing a petition for review with the appropriate court of appeals. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9); Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622 (9th Cir.

2012).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-55655