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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. DATED DECEMBER
31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       9,386,069
<SECURITIES>                                35,243,624
<RECEIVABLES>                                  822,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,471,303
<PP&E>                                       2,655,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,847,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,764,082
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,479
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,048,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,847,282
<SALES>                                      3,671,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,671,133
<CGS>                                        2,099,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,390,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,068,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,068,812
<DISCONTINUED>                             (13,904,944)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (12,836,132)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (4.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.85)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7349]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7833]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition

    Determinations: ``Roy Lichtenstein: A Retrospective''
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Roy Lichtenstein: A Retrospective'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Art Institute 
of Chicago, Chicago, IL, from on or about May 16, 2012, until on or 
about September 3, 2012; The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 
from on or about October 14, 2012, until on or about January 6, 2013, 
and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, 
is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: March 20, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-7349 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
257 La. 459

#### Succession of Mary Gertrude BUVENS.

No. 51068.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 1971.

In re: Rev. Norman C. Buvens, et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Sabine. 241 So.2d 89.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
#### Ruth WINSTON and George Winston, Appellants, v. DURA-TRED CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and Joseph Abelow, Appellees.

No. 72-123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1972.

*427Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellants.

Henry J. Whelchel, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, J J.

PEARSON, Judge.

Appellants brought an action for dissolution of a corporation and other relief incident to the dissolution. The trial court entered a summary final judgment holding that the plaintiffs were barred by laches.

Laches is an affirmative defense. The burden of proving it is on those who assert it, and proof must be by very clear and positive evidence. Van Meter v. Kelsey, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 327, 332. The elements of laches as set forth in the Van Meter case are: (1) conduct by the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made; (2) delay in asserting the plaintiff’s rights, after the plaintiff has had notice or knowledge of the defendant’s conduct, and an opportunity to institute suit; (3) lack of knowledge on the part oí the defendant that the plaintiff would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the plaintiff. See Blumin v. Ellis, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So.2d 286, 294.

The summary final judgment was entered upon the pleadings, the affidavits, the exhibits attached to defendants’ motion to strike, and the depositions of George Winston and Joseph Abelow. However, the court considered matters of which it did not make a record. The order appealed recites: “The Court has considered the record of the prior hearings in this case and has received and considered the testimony of George Winston presented at one of the four hearings on the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”

Under these circumstances, and because the record does not demonstrate without genuine issue of material fact that the defendants established the elements of the affirmative defense of laches by clear and positive evidence, the judgment must be reversed.

In this connection, we point out that the Supreme Court has held in Reed v. Fain, Fla. 1961, 145 So.2d 858, 868:

> ****** “Laches, even when measured by a statutory yardstick, does not necessarily bar the assertion of rights in a court of equity which have been the subject of attempted invasion or destruction by action which is null and void, at least not until and unless the rights of innocent third parties intervene or one (or more) of the transgressors has clearly demon*428strated that the delay has prejudiced his alleged rights.” }¡< j}i j{c jji

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
#### A TO Z PAPER COMPANY, Inc. v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 8438.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1971.

Leonard Washofsky, Jackson & Hess, New Orleans, for appellant.

David I. Garrett, Madison, Files, Garrett, Brandon & Hamaker, Monroe, for ap-pellee.

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

On or about April 23, 1970, the defendant Louisiana State Board of Education advertised for bids on certain school supplies. Plaintiff A To Z Paper Co., Inc. submitted the low bid for certain of the items advertised. The Board, however, accepted a higher bid submitted by Graham Paper Company. This suit was brought against the Board, William J. Dodd, State Superintendent of Education, and Enoch T. Nix, President of the Board, asking that they be enjoined from so awarding the contract, and for a judgment declaring the action of the Board in accepting the higher bid to be null and void. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff has--appealed devolu-tively.

In brief and argument, it is conceded that during the pendency of the devolutive appeal, the contract for the supplies was awarded to Graham Paper Company, the materials delivered and payment for same actually made. It is, therefore, conceded that the case is moot insofar as the injunc-tive relief sought is concerned. However, plaintiff requests that we render the declaratory relief sought below.

This we are unable to do. The relief sought was that:

> “ * * * this Court render judgment declaring the action of defendants herein in accordance with said purchase order or contract to a higher bidder null and void and of no effect, in that it is in direct violation of express provisions of the Constitution of Louisiana, Article III, Section 30, and La.R.S. 39:180.”

*644When the contract was awarded and executed in full, the only controversy between the parties presented by this proceeding became moot. A justiciable controversy between the parties must exist before the courts can render declaratory judgments relative thereto. Stoddard v. City of New Orleans, 246 La. 417, 165 So.2d 9 (1964).

Since the issues here presented are moot, and no justiciable controversy appears, we think that any opinion relative thereto would be purely advisory, and rendition of such opinions is reprobated by law. The appeal is therefore dismissed, at plaintiff’s cost.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32849-32850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15120]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1981-000]


Pratt Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Pratt Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an 
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to

[[Page 32850]]

intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is July 30, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7f1f2e5f4f8d9dbded9d2e4c2c7c7d8c5c3f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bcdced9c8c4e5e7e2e5eed8fefbfbe4f9ffcbedeef9e8a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15120 Filed 7-13-18; 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>
P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 94 ) IV-C-6

0 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:56

AM Sheet 94 of 232P. 2

* TQH \ UNITE DSTATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y IBR * WASHINGTON ,D.C . 2046 0 % P " ° ^•" > FE B 5198 8

OFFIC EO F AI RAN D RADIATIO N Honorabl e Lawto n M . Chile s Unite d State s Senato r Federa l Buildin g Lakeland , Florid a 3380 1 Dea r Senato r Chiles : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r January21 , 198 8 lette r relaying th e concern s o f on e o f you r constituents , Mr . Gordo n P . Summers , Jr. , regarding EPA' s regulatory proposa l t o requir e onboar d canister s o n ne wvehicle s t o contro l refueling emissions . T o assis t yo u wit hyou r response , I hav e enclose d a copyo f ou r proposa l fo r you r review . Sectio n E (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposin g onboar d controls . I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso n o f th e Standard s Developmen t and Suppor t Branc ho f th e Emissio nContro l TechnologyDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , An nArbor , Michiga n 4810 5 (FT S 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Thank yo u fo r you r letter . W e wil l plac e th e lette r fromMr . Summer s i n ou r publi c docke t an d full yconside r hi s comment s i n th e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . Sincerel yyours , -_• " '• • 00BY oKJNi^s) ZJ. ij.i'-'ujI

H Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e cc : Docke t A-87-1 1 Prepare d by : For

mLetter:sal:2/3/88:AL88039 0 - ECTD , AnnArbor , M I bcc : Regio n0 4 Congressiona l Liaison/Quinn
#### Maria Di Iulio PAVAN, a/k/a Maria Di Iulio, 627 47th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, Appellant, v. Benjamin PAVAN, Appellee.

No. 71-226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 24, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo BILES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10895.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 28, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1968.

John S. Stephens, Coushatta, Gist, Meth-vin & Trimble, Alexandria, for appellant.

Blanchard, Walker, O’Quin & Roberts, Shreveport, for appellee.

Before AYRES, BOLIN and BARHAM, JJ.

BOLIN, J.

This is a companion suit to that of Buswell v. Biles et al., decided this date and reported in *205*So.2d 165. For the reasons assigned in the consolidated case the judgment appealed from is annulled and

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the demands against third party defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, be rejected.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment in favor of Travelers Indemnity Company and against Leo Biles in the sum of $464.40 with legal interest thereon from judicial demand until paid, together with all costs.

Annulled and recast.
JUL-12-201 1 16:2 2 P.01/0 3

LA W OFFICE S 

## GAROFAL O GOERLIC H HAINBAC H PC 120 0 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENU E N W • SUITE 80 0 • WASHINGTO KD C 20036-560 2

TELEPHON E 20 2 776-397 0 • FACEIUIL E 20 2 776-397 5

WWW.QQH-AIRLAW.CO M

FAX NUMBER(S ) TRANSMITTED TO : 202-493-5^ 2 To : Company ; Hearin g Docke t Clear , AGC-43 0 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n From : Kristin aPickholt z Client/Matter : EV A Airway s Corporatio n Date : Jul y 12,201 1 

### DOCUMENTS Withdrawa l o f

Appea l 

### NUMBE RO FPAGES 3 (incIudin} J cove r

sheet ) COMMENTS ; Pleas e se e attache dWithdrawa l o f Appeal . Thank you . 

### 52.o)o/^Jf n 110 0 ( f

m i s MESSAG E 3

S INTENDE D ONt, Y FO RTH E US E O FTHE INDIVIDUAL O RBNTIT Y T O V/HICH I

T [ S .«jiDR£SSL' D AN P MAY CONT/M N INFORMATIO N THAT I S PRIV1LE0EI5 . CONHDENTIA L AN D EXEMI T FRO M LJISCLOSUR E UNDERAPPLICABLE LAU.' , IJ-' THi i READERO FTHIS MESSAG E IS NO T TH E TNTEKDE

D I^ECIPIENT . YO U ARE HEREB Y NOTIPIE- D THA T ANY DISSEMINATION , DLSTRIOUTION O RCOPYIN G O

K THl. S COMMUNICATIO N I S STRICTLY PROHlBrrED . I FYO U HAVE RECEIVE D THI S COMMUNICATIO N I N likROR , PLEAS E NOTIF Y US IMMGDlATtL Y l) Y TELEPHONE ^N D RETUR N TH E ORIGINA L MESSAGE
- T O US ATTH E ABOV E ADDRES S VI A TU B U.S . POSTAL SERVICE . THANK YO UJUL-12-201 1 16:2 3 P.02/0 3
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . 

### ")l:F/\RiMENTO F :HAN3?ORl'ATiOf J 'OCK^ TOPERATION S ?Gi i JU' L I B P 1 : 3 3
I n th e matte r

of : EV A Ainvay s Corporatio n FA A Cas e No . 2010NM71006 1 JUDG E NO T ASSIGNE D

WITHDRAWA L O FAPPEA L RESPONSDENT , EV

A Airv^'ay s Corporation , hereb y withdraw s it s appea l pursuan t t o asettlemen t

o f thi s nnatte r

wit h th e FAA . Respectfull y Submitted ,
Victo r H . Smit h Garofal o Goerlic h Hainbac h P C 120 0 Ne w Hampshir e Avenue , N W Washington , D C 2003 6 Counse l fo r

Responden t Dated : Jul y 12 , 201 1JUL-12-201 1 16=2 3 P . 1J3/Q 3

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t acop y o f

th e foregoin g Witlidrawa l o f Appea l wa s serve db y facsimil e an dcertifie dmai l - Retur n Receip t Requeste dthi s date , t o th e following : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Fax : (202)493-514 2 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 160 1 Lin dAvenu e S.W . Renton , Washingto n 9805 7 Fax : (425 ) 227-100 7 Attn : Kyl e Lomozo w Date dthi s 12'^ " da y o f

July , 201 1

Kristin aPickholt z Garofal o Goerlic h Hainbac h P C 120 0 Ne w Hampshir e Avenue , N W Washington , D C 2003 6

TDIfl L P.0 3
EXHIBIT 16.1






[PwC Letterhead]

June 28, 2001


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Commissioners:

We have read the statements made by Ion Networks, Inc. (copy attached), which we
understand will be filed with the Commission, pursuant to Item 8 of Form 10-KSB,
as part of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2001. We agree
with the statements concerning our firm made in Item 8 of said Form 10-KSB.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### COOK *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 19,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October*9, *1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, HornEy, Marbury and SybeRT, JJ.

*637Per Curiam.

The applicant, Cook, in his petition for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, raised essentially nine grounds for relief, among which were the denial of opportunity to present witnesses, withholding of evidence by the State, and the commission of perjury by State’s witnesses with the knowledge and approval of the State’s Attorney. The trial judge, after a brief hearing in open court, granted the State’s motion to dismiss on the ground “that Mr. Cook does not allege such facts or error that has not either been previously acted upon either by the Trial or Appellate Court, or has not been waived as a result of trial, and as a result have no assignment of error in the appeal.”

Under the provisions of Rule BK45 (b) of the Maryland Rules every order on a petition filed for relief under the Act “shall include or be accompanied by a short memorandum of the grounds of the petition, the questions, including specifically the federal and State rights involved, and the reasons for the action taken thereon.” It is apparent, without going into the merits of the petitioner’s alleged grounds for relief, that the summary dismissal of his petition does not comply with the requirements of this Rule. In *Brigmon v. Warden,*221 Md. 622, this same question arose under Code (1959 Cum. Supp.), Art. 27, Sec. 645G, which has since been repealed, Acts 1962, Ch. 36, Sec. 1, and replaced by the Rule quoted above, and which read in part: “The order making final disposition of the petition shall clearly state the grounds on which the case was determined and whether a federal or a state right was presented and decided.” The Court, in remanding the case for further disposition, pointed out through Judge Prescott that “the plain direction of the statute” required the final order to contain “a statement of the Federal and State rights ‘presented and decided,’ as well as ‘the grounds on which the case was determined.’ ” We find it necessary to remand this case for further proceedings in accord with Rule BK45 (b).

*Application for leave to appeal granted and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.*