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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in real estate, and real
estate joint ventures.  In accordance with industry practice, its balance 
sheet is unclassified.  For full information, refer to the accompanying 
audited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,193,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,274,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,319,056<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  90,581,347<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,319,056<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,414,607<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,227,313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (7,812,706)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (7,812,706)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (7,812,706)<F5>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (39.72)<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net investments
in real estate of $66,981,760, real estate held for sale of $22,417,670,
investment in joint venture of $2,694,918, net deferred expenses of
$2,185,691 and other assets of $570,280.
<F2>Other Stockholders' Equity represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and accrued liabilities of 
$1,121,405, minority interest in joint venture of $8,423,845, and other 
liabilities of $192,459.
<F4>Total revenue includes rent of $16,206,557, equity in earnings of joint 
venture of $250,109, and interest and other revenues of $957,941.
<F5>Net loss includes loss on impairment of real estate of $11,870,000.
<F6>Represents net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022037EN.01002301.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/23

---

Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Graham R. Watson (T-245/20) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-240/20 to T-245/20, Arnaoutakis and Others v Parliament

(Case C-716/21 P)

(2022/C 37/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Graham R. Watson (represented by: J. M. Martínez Gimeno, abogado, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogado, E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, and F. Doumont, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | rule on the dispute and annul the Parliament’s decision in so far as it rejects the appellant’s application to be granted a voluntary additional pension on the ground that he has not reached the required age of 65; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the dispute and annul the Parliament’s decision in so far as it rejects the appellant’s application to be granted a voluntary additional pension on the ground that he has not reached the required age of 65;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-245/20. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-245/20.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The grounds of appeal allege: (i) the Bureau’s lack of competence to take the decision of the Bureau of 2018, inter alia in so far as it lays down substantive conditions for rights conferring prospective entitlement before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (ii) infringement of the first sentence of Article 27(2) of the Staff Regulations by reason of non-observance of rights conferring prospective entitlement prior to the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (iii) infringement of the principle of equality and non-discrimination and of the principle of proportionality; and (iv) infringement of the principle of legal certainty (lack of transitional measures) and the principle of legitimate expectations.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6629

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KELVIN TYRONE FIELDINGS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

District Judge. (CR-03-78; CA-04-113-4)

Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 2, 2005

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Tyrone Fieldings, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Tyrone Fieldings seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Fieldings has not made the requisite showing.

The only issue Fieldings asserts on appeal is that he did

not agree to dismiss in the district court a claim from his § 2255

motion. This court is not the appropriate forum in which to raise

this claim. Rather, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party may move

the district court for relief from a final judgment or order based

upon any reason justifying relief. Because Fieldings failed to

make a sufficient showing as to the claim raised on appeal and

failed to present any other issue, see 4th Cir. Local Rule 34(b),
- 3 -

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Herbert W. VIRGIN, III, and Chester E. Whittle, Jr., Appellants, v. Robert H. SLATKO, Appellee.

No. 77-1600.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 15, 1978.

*1179Podhurst, Orseck & Parks and Michael S. Olin, Miami, for appellants.

Sam Speetor, Tallahassee and Arthur E. Huttoe, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order for an accounting. The main thrust of the appeal is that the trial judge misconstrued the contracts between the parties. We hold that an accounting was properly ordered under the law concerning partnership contracts set forth in *Frates v. Nichols,*140 So.2d 321 (Fla.3d DCA 1962). See also *Obel v. Henshaw,*130 So.2d 892 (Fla.3d DCA 1961).

A second question presented is whether the order properly included “good will” as an asset of the partnership. As a general proposition, a business dependent solely upon the personal and professional qualifications of the persons carrying it on does not possess “good will.” See *Bailly v. Betti,*241 N.Y. 22, 148 N.E. 776 (1925); *Cook v. Lauten,*1 Ill.App.2d 255, 117 N.E.2d 414 (1954); and *Siddall v. Keating,*8 A.D.2d 44, 185 N.Y.S.2d 630 (1959). We hold that the evidence before the trial court does not bring the present dissolution within the meaning of the provisions in the first partnership contract, which provided for “good will” only upon the “ . . . retirement of a partner, loss of license of a partner, or the death of a partner . . . ” Therefore, in that particular only, the order appealed is reversed. . In all other particulars, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the order appealed, as modified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION OF THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-K/A, WHICH IS ATTACHED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000752634
<NAME>                        EARTH SEARCH SCIENCES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,119,562
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      467,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                        33,912
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,923,244
<PP&E>                                          12,991,743
<DEPRECIATION>                                     982,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,932,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,308,174
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000,000
<COMMON>                                        22,455,002
<OTHER-SE>                                     (21,369,612)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,932,230
<SALES>                                          1,526,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,526,446
<CGS>                                            1,796,412
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,808,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,136,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,177,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,177,983)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,177,983)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.048)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.048)





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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     FDS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000946822
<NAME>                        Preferred Voice
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         644,739
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    86,314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               738,073
<PP&E>                                         1,032,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                 305,466
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,355,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          778,979
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13,626
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,562,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,355,532
<SALES>                                        (2,341)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (2,341)
<CGS>                                          8,949
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  812,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (815,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (815,020)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)





</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, James T. Engen, certifythat:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Mackie Designs Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

(a)  Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)  Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)  Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of director:

 

(a)  All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)  Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated: August  14, 2003 | By:                                     | /s/ James T. Engen |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                         | James T. Engen                          |
|                         | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             980
<SECURITIES>                                        49
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6398
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1486
<INVENTORY>                                        111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8407
<PP&E>                                           76781
<DEPRECIATION>                                   61736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   23625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5579
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           623
<OTHER-SE>                                       15173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     23625
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 18563
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    19796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   128
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1207)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1207)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1207)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Flanders Jordan, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel McCray, Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 141]

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.) rendered January 24, 1991 and March 18, 1991, convicting each defendant after a joint jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing defendant Jordan, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 11 to 22 years and sentencing defendant McCray, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 17 years to life, unanimously affirmed. Orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 17, 1992 and May 25, 1993, which, *inter alia,*directed a hearing, and thereafter denied, defendant Jordan’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate judgment, unanimously affirmed.

We find the record of the voir dire portion of this case, as presented on the appeals, sufficiently complete to determine *142the *Batson*claims raised by defendants *(People v Childress,*81 NY2d 263, 268). The record demonstrates that, even though defendants failed to establish a clear pattern of purposeful discrimination in the first instance, the prosecutor provided nonpretextual race neutral reasons for the use of the peremptory strikes against the jurors, whose dismissals are challenged on appeal by defendants *(see, People v Payne,*88 NY2d 172, 181; *cf., People v Rodriguez,*211 AD2d 275, *appeal dismissed 88*NY2d 917), and that defendants had ample opportunity to address the prosecutor’s reasons for his use of particular peremptory challenges.

The court’s statements to the panel during voir dire regarding the defendant’s decision whether or not to testify do not warrant reversal *(see, People v Koberstein,*66 NY2d 989, 990-991).

The trial court’s dismissal of an ill juror and of another juror who admitted that the cancellation of her travel plans would affect her ability to deliberate, while retaining three other jurors, two of whom had vacation plans and one of whom had an imminent final college examination did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. All three of the retained jurors unequivocally expressed that their ability to deliberate fairly would not be compromised by the circumstances *(People v Lopez,*225 AD2d 418, *lv denied*88 NY2d 988; *People v Wright,*174 AD2d 522, 523).

We have reviewed the other claims raised by defendants on the appeals from the judgments and find them to be without merit.

Upon review of defendant Jordan’s claims regarding the trial court’s denial, after a hearing, of his motion pursuant to GPL 440.10, we find those claims to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.