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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF DICTAPHONE CORPORATION AT JUNE 30, 1997,
AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,821
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                       757
<INVENTORY>                                     42,795
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,830
<PP&E>                                          63,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 483,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,032
<BONDS>                                        349,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,455
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   483,995
<SALES>                                        115,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,108
<CGS>                                           71,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,897)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,983
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,914)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,914)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.99)
        

</TABLE>
Appeal s Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 26, 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00608- CV NO. 14- 19 -00609- CV

SCOT CARTER, Appellant

V.
DELL B. EVERETT AND KELLEY EVERETT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 2013-74753 and 2018-06658

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The reporter’s record has not been filed. On August 29, 2019 , the clerk of this

court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’s record unless appellant provided this court with proof that he had paid or made arrangements to pay for the record. Such proof was due by September

13 , 201 9 . Appellant did not file such proof or other response.
On October 1, 2019, we ordered appellant to file a brief by October 31, 2019

.2

We cautioned that we would dismiss the appeals for want of prosecution if no brief
was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No brief has been filed.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-57648, 333-15679, 333-33885, 333-47536, 333-47538 and 333-88387 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 29, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule ofMaterial Sciences Corporation appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Material Sciences Corporation for the year ended February 28, 2011. 

*/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

Chicago, IL 

April 29, 2011 

 
1
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14762]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2246-065--California]


Notice of Revised Environmental Site Review; Yuba County Water 
Agency

    The start time for the July 11, 2018 environmental site review of 
the Yuba River Development Project, outlined in the June 18, 2018 
Notice of Environmental Site Review, has been changed to 8:30 a.m. from 
10:00 a.m. (PDT). If you have any questions, please contact Alan 
Mitchnick at (202) 502-6074 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f2e232e216122263b2c2721262c240f292a3d2c61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7b6bbb6b9f9babea3b4bfb9beb4bc97b1b2a5b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14762 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2022095EN.01000602.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/6

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2021 by AM.VI. Srl, Quinam Limited, the successor in law to Fashioneast Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-297/20, Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)

(Case C-599/21 P)

(2022/C 95/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: AM.VI. Srl, Quinam Limited, the successor in law to Fashioneast Sàrl (represented by: A. Camusso, M. Baghetti, avvocati, A. Boros, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 17 January 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that AM. VI. and Quinam Limited shall bear their own costs

---
#### Timothy K. WRICH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1802.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 14, 1977.

As Modified On Denial of Rehearing Nov. 9, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Timothy K. Wrich was placed on probation on October 9, 1972, after having entered a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary. On February 25,1975, his probation supervisor filed an affidavit charging him with violations of conditions (d), (e) and (h) of his probation. Two days later a hearing was held on these violations, and at that hearing the trial court found that appellant had not violated conditions (d), (e) and (h). He did, however, find that appellant was guilty of a violation of another condition, condition (c); whereupon, he revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to a term of five years with fifteen days credit for time served.

This court affirmed that order and the Supreme Court of Florida denied appellant’s petition for writ of certiorari. Appellant thereafter filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claiming that his due process rights had been violated when he was convicted of a probation violation with which he had not been charged. The district court agreed with appellant and determined that the order violated due process.

On September 27,1976, appellant’s probation supervisor filed a new affidavit for violation of probation, this time for violation of the aforementioned condition (c). The trial court found appellant guilty at a hearing held on October 11,1976, and again sentenced him to five years in prison with appropriate credits. This appeal ensued.

Appellant argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction on October 11, 1976 to revoke his probation. We agree.

Appellant’s original three-year term of probation ended on October 9,1975. That date remained effective despite the federal court findings. It was not until almost a year later, September 27, 1976, that the second affidavit of violation was filed. This was fatally untimely since it is well settled that an affidavit alleging a *1115violation of probation must be filed *before*the expiration of the probation. *Maycock v. State,*281 So.2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); *State ex rel. Ard v. Shelby,*97 So.2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957).

The other points raised on this appeal now become moot.

In view whereof, the order appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded with directions that appellant be forever discharged of the burglary charges herein.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                     Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries of Registrant
                               as of June 29, 1999

<S>                                                         <C>
N.E.T. APLA, Inc.........................................   (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)
N.E.T. China, Inc........................................   (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)
N.E.T. Credit Corporation................................   (State of Incorporation:  California)
N.E.T. Europe Ltd........................................   (Incorporated Under the Laws of England)
N.E.T. Europe S.A........................................   (Incorporated Under the Laws of France)
N.E.T. Federal, Inc......................................   (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)
N.E.T. International, Inc................................   (Incorporated Under the Laws of Barbados)
N.E.T. Japan, Inc........................................   (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)
Network Equipment Technologies Europe GmbH...............   (Incorporated Under the Laws of Germany)
</TABLE>
#### Neale as ad. vs. Peay as Receiver.

The affidavit and prayer for an appeal from, the judgment of the Probate Court, do not invest the Circuit Court with jurisdiction, unless the appeal be granted; and if the record be filed in the Circuit Court, the cause will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction; but in such case it is error to render judgment for costs.

*Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court.*

Hon. Tiieodoric F. Sorrells, Circuit Judge.

Stillwell, for the appellant.

S. H. Hempstead, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Compton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A demand in favor of Peay, as Receiver of the assets of the Real Estate Bank, whs allowed and classed by the Probate Court against the estate of *Mauldin.*

The administrator made affidavit in the usual form and prayed *94an appeal to the Circuit Court, but it does not appear from the record that the appeal was granted. The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal and rendered judgment against the administrator for costs;

It was decided in *Berry vs. Singer,*4 *Eng.*128, that where, on appeal from the Circuit Court to this Court, the record shows that the party appealing complied with all the pre-requisites required by statute to entitle him to an appeal, but fails to show that the appeal was granted, this Court will dismiss for want of jurisdiction. No good reason has been, or can be given, why the same rule should not apply to appeals from the Probate Court to the Circuit Court, the statutes regulating each being similar in their provisions, so far as regards the point in controversy. *Gould’s Dig. p.*137, 867. *See, also, Moss vs. Ashbrooks,*15 *Ark.*169.

The Court having no jurisdiction, erred, however, in rendering judgment against the administrator for costs. *Morris wife vs. Walker,*3 *Eng.*569; *Heflin vs. Owen, ib.*265; and for this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Absent, Mr. Justice Rector!
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
NeoRx Corporation:

 We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos. 33-60029, 33-64992, 33-63169, 333-00785, and 333-25161) on Form S-3 and in
the registration statements (Nos. 33-43860,  33-46317,  33-87108,  333-32583) on
Form S-8 of NeoRx Corporation, of our report dated January 30, 1998, relating to
the balance sheet of NeoRx  Corporation as of December 31, 1997, and the related
statements of operations,  shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended,  which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K
of NeoRx Corporation.

                                                         KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Seattle, Washington
March 24, 1998
#### CUMMINGS *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 15,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 9, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and SybERT, JJ.

Per Curiam.

For reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Carter below, the application for leave to appeal is hereby denied.

*Application denied.*
N

, 

# S/1' the plastics industry .`-,/ trade association August 19, 2009 OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) EPAEast Building, Room6428 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC Attention

: EPADocket ID Number OPPT-2003-0071 VIACOURIER Dear Sir or Madam, LI .I .J

#  ;,45 ORIGINAL

lillllllllllllllqllllllll'IIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIViiII~IL

Attached please find six papercopies and a PDF copy on disk ofan amendmentto the Study Plan for Phase II Fluoropolymer Incineration Testing (submitted December 29, 2005) pursuant tothe Enforceable Consent Agreement for the Laboratory-Scale Incineration Testing of Fluoropolymers (EPA Docket No. OPPT-2003-0071). In the attached amendment, "Reference" points to the corresponding itemin the original StudyPlan submission of September 6, 2005, and the italicized text notes where to insert supplemental text. This amendment supplementsthe previous amendments to this study plan submitted on June 11, 2007 andon May 15, 2009. This amendment should be appended to eachcopy ofthe Study Plan for Phase II Fluoropolymer Incineration Testing. This submission is being made on behalf of the following companies: AGCChemicals Americas, Inc. 55 E. Uwchlan Avenue, Suite 201 Exton, PA 19341 Daikin America, Inc. 20 Olympic Drive Orangeburg, NY 10962 Dyneon, LLC 6744 33' Street Oakdale, MN 55128 E. 1. du Pont de Nemours and Company 1007 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19898 Ifyouhave any questions onthis submission, please contact me at 202-974-5217. Sincerelyyours,

e Harris Vice President, Science and Technology 

# MMains No C 3~1lq) CONTAINS NOCB!Study Plan for Phase II Fluoropolymer Incineration Testing

Amendment (8/17/2009) Reference Original Text Replacement or Supplemental Text Item 6. Bubbler solution samples Bubbler solution samples

collected at UDRI will be collected at UDRI will be analyzed at Exygen Research . analyzed at MPI Research - State College for PFOA and at Shealy Environmental Services, Inc . for fluoride . Item 6. Shealy Environmental Services,

(Since there is no corresponding Inc . original text, insert 106 Vantage Point Drive supplemental text to the right West Columbia, SC 29172 at the end of this Item to amend Principal Investigator : Michael the Study Plan .) Woodrum (803) 791-9700 Item 7 . Michael Woodrum is Laboratory

(Since there is no corresponding Director at Shealy Environmental original text, insert Services, Inc . He holds a supplemental text to the right Bachelor of Science degree (cum at the end of this Item in to laude) in Chemistry from Francis amend the Study Plan .) Marion College. With over 20 years at Shealy, Mr . Woodrum has a broad range of experience in environmental analysis .

OPPT-2003-0071 ECA on Laboratory-Scale Incineration Testing of Fluoropolymers
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Analytical Surveys, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-53950, No. 33-59940 and No. 333-47365) on Form S-8 of Analytical Surveys,
Inc. of our report dated December 21, 2001 (except as to note 14, which is as of
December 28, 2001), relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Analytical
Surveys, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2001,
which report appears in the September 30, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Analytical Surveys, Inc.



KPMG LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
December 28, 2001
#### Harrison H. BARKER, Charles Richard Hines, and Leroy Francis Plumley, as Beneficiaries under that certain Testamentary Trust of Georgia Seagle Holland, deceased, Appellants, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the FLORIDA ANNUAL CONFERENCE of the METHODIST CHURCH, a non-profit corporation; Harold E. Buell, William D. Tiffin, Tobert D. Bledsoe, Joe Y. Richardson, Chester B. Chance, and J. Francis Cooper, as Trustees under that certain Testamentary Trust of Georgia Seagle Holland, deceased, Appellees.

No. O-170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 1971.

Richard J. Wilson, Gainesville, for appellants.

Chandler, O’Neal, Carlisle, Avera, Gray & Lang, Gainesville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal appellants challenge the denial of their application for a temporary injunction.

Appellants’ prayer for a temporary injunction is directed to a will and charitable trust established by Georgia Seagle Holland, deceased. The trial court in denying the temporary injunction entered a decree which held, inter alia:

> “ * * * plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate such an interest as would entitle them to injunctive interference with the Trustees’ decision to close Georgia Seagle Hall for the present.

> “a. It appears from the evidence that the Trustees of the Georgia Seagle trust have determined that for financial and other reasons it would not be in the best interest of the trust to keep Georgia Seagle Hall open for the immediate future and that a study is now under way as to whether or not it may be in the best interest of the trust, consistent with the purposes thereof, to ultimately discontinue operation of Georgia Seagle Hall, or perhaps modify the method of its operation.

> “The Court is not persuaded that such action on the part of the Trustees is so *669beyond their discretionary powers as to presently warrant injunctive interference by the Court.”

In argument before this court, counsel for appellees alleged that the sole point which could be considered by this court is: Are these plaintiffs entitled to a temporary injunction? Although appellants have posed several points on appeal, we agree with appellees’ attorney. Although other language appears in the decree of the trial judge, the gist of his holding is that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate such an interest as would entitle them to injunc-tive interference for the present and that the action on the part of the trustees does not presently warrant injunctive interference by the court. In denying relief to appellants at this stage of the proceedings, we emphasize that this court has made no adjudication as to the interest of plaintiffs to maintain the subject action. By way of dictum, we are constrained to the view that plaintiffs do possess such an interest as to maintain this suit. Further, no adjudication as to any construction of the trust document or merits of the complaint has been made.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Gene FLEMING v. CONCORDIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 53573.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: Gene Fleming applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Concordia. 27S So.2d 795.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00019-CV

EX PARTE N.T.L.

On Appeal from the

135th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18-10-83574-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment 

denying N.T.L.'s petition for expunction. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 27, 2019
#### Joe T. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 3388.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

Writ Refused June 28, 1971.

Gist, Methvin & Trimble, by DeWitt T. Methvin, Jr., Alexandria, for defendants-appellants.

Neblett, Führer & Hunter, by Robert B. Neblett, Jr., Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY, and CUL-PEPPER, Judges.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is an action for personal injuries arising out of a multi-automobile accident occurring on a rural highway.

This suit was consolidated for trial with a companion case arising out of the same accident. We are deciding both cases this date. Kadlec v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. et al., 247 So.2d 586 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1971).

The trial court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $2,750 for personal injuries and special damages in the sum of $769.21 caused by the accident. Mr. Jones, the defendant, and his insurer, State Farm Mutual, have appealed from this judgment and also the denial of their reconventional demands against Mr. Huffman. Mr.. Huffman has answered the appeal and requests an increase in the amount of damages. We affirm.

The facts of this case are thoroughly set out in the companion suit. The only question we are entertaining in this portion of the case is adequacy of the amount. We do not find the award excessive nor insufficient. The ■ report given by the doctor that examined and treated Mr. Huffman, Dr. Gutierrez, can be characterized as a typical report of a soft tissue injury. Mr. Huffman sustained injuries to his chest, shoulders, and right arm. There was no bone injury nor any internal injury. Mr. Huffman was first seen by Dr. Gutierrez on the 21st of December. On the 26th of December, he returned complaining of pain in his neck and right shoulder with limited motion of the neck and right shoulder. This condition did *592improve and improvement was noted on his next visit on the 6th of January, and a subsequent visit on January 20th. However, at this later date, Mr. Huffman still had complaints of pain in the neck and shoulder and a low back pain. He did make improvements, but his complaints persist. Doctor continued to treat him and the progress was gradual. He still had such complaints in late 1969, even though the doctor could suggest no further treatment. Even at the date of the trial, Mr. Huffman made complaints to the doctor of persisting pain. Mr. Huffman stated that he was still so bothered by his injuries that he could not use a handsaw, a tool of his trade, as a carpenter, nor could he do other work due to pain in his shoulder. His complaint of continued disability is too unsupported to warrant an increase in his award.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The costs to be paid by John F. Jones, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, defendants and appellants.

Affirmed.
#### Raymond DANIELS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-814.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.