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 CELERIS CORPORATION DATED MARCH 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       9,114,580
<SECURITIES>                                 4,080,079
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,864,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                   213,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,216,808
<PP&E>                                       1,233,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,450,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,209,480
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,398
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,209,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,450,689
<SALES>                                      1,932,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,932,862
<CGS>                                        1,373,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,927,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,198,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,198,528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 200,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (998,528)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.32)


</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000728

20-NOV-2014

09:45 AM
#### MAGDALEN WASHBURN v. LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY and UNION ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER COMPANY, Appellants.

Division Two,

July 16, 1920.

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals in Washburn v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 202 Mo. App. 102, the judgment herein is affirmed as to the Laclede Gas Light Company, and reversed as to the Union Electric Light & Power Company.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *George H. Shields,*Judge.

Affirmed *(in*part); reversed *(in part).*

*Werner & Penney*and *Marshall £ Henderson*for appellant, Laclede Gas Light Company; *Jourdan, Hassieur £ Pierce*for appellant, Union Electric Light *&*Power Company.

*Kinealy £ Kinealy*for respondent.

WILLIAMS, P. J.

Action for damages. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the circuit court against both defendants in sum of $7,250, and each defendant thereupon duly appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. That court delivered an opinion which will be found reported in 202 Mo. App. 102. The Court of Appeals certified the case here because one of its judges deemed, the opinion contrary to previous decisions of this court.

A sufficiently accurate statement of the facts will be found stated in the majority opinion of that court. After carefully considering the case we have reached the conclusion that said majority opinion also correctly ’states the law of the case.

*182Learned counsel for appellant Laclede Gas Light Company urge as ground for reversal two points which were not made in the Court of Appeals. These points have to do with plaintiff’s instructions numbered 1 and 3. We have carefully examined the additional points thus made, but do not find any matter of error therein which would justify a reversal, nor do we consider the points of sufficient importance to merit discussion. We merely make mention of the same so that it may be known that the points were given consideration.

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals we affirm the judgment against the defendant Laclede Gas Light Company, and reverse the judgment against the defendant Union Electric Light & Power Company.

All concur.
#### Alexander GRAHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 22, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kinder, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Alexander Graham was found guilty, after a non-jury trial, of possession of a stolen automobile and unlawful buying, receiving or concealing stolen property. He was placed on probation and has appealed.

His first point on appeal is directed to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he had possession of any stolen property or knowledge that the property was, in fact, stolen. There was sufficient, competent and substantial evidence before the trier of fact to sustain the finding that defendant had possession and knowledge that the property in question was stolen.

Defendant’s argument, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because of “an alleged bad arrest”, is without merit as this point was not properly preserved for appeal. Albano v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 342, and *318Bertone v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 400.

These are the only two points which are properly before us and we do not, therefore, consider other arguments advanced on behalf of defendant.

The judgment is

Affirmed.
# C_2021391EN.01000401.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 15 March 2021 — PJ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-167/21)

(2021/C 391/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PJ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021.

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-50523

Summary Calendar

BRUCE H. WITHERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CNA INSURANCE COMPANIES; CONTINENTAL

CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(EP-0-CV-3-EP)

December 3, 2001

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This lawsuit arose out of an injury sustained by the

plaintiff, Bruce H. Withers (Withers), when he was struck by a

vehicle operated by an uninsured motorist. Just prior to the

accident, Withers was traveling in a vehicle owned by his employer,
2

Stan’s Frozen Foods, during the course and scope of his employment.

Withers stopped at a roadside rest stop to use the facilities.

Withers parked the vehicle in the parking lot, exited the vehicle,

and had taken about three or four steps across the parking lot

toward the restroom facilities when he was struck by the uninsured

vehicle. The vehicle which Withers had been driving was insured by

his employer through the Defendants, CNA Insurance Companies and

Continental Casualty Company. After the accident Withers filed a

claim for uninsured motorist benefits under his employer’s policy.

The Defendants denied the claim. Withers then sued the Defendants,

claiming that he qualified as “an insured” under the policy and

that the Defendants breached their contractual duty to him by

denying coverage. Withers also claimed that the Defendants’

refusal to cover his injuries violates the Texas Deceptive Trade

Practice Act (DTPA) and the Texas Insurance Code and constitutes a

violation of the Defendants’ duty of good faith and fair dealing to

him. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that

Withers is not entitled to recover because he was not an insured

under the policy. The district court conducted a summary judgment

hearing and concluded that the Defendants’ motion should be

granted. Withers appeals to this Court.

We have read the briefs, the record excerpts, and relevant

portions of the record. For the reasons stated by the district

judge in his Order filed under date of May 7, 2001, we affirm the

Final Judgment entered of even date therewith.
3

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Scott Macleod, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge: 

(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/ Scott Macleod

  |
| Name:                     | Scott Macleod                                        |
| Title:                    | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

February 27, 2009
#### Jose A. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN MOTOR INN OF FORT LAUDERDALE, and State of Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43744.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1974.

Sam H. Nedelman, South Miami, for petitioner.

Frank M. Hamilton, of Fleming', O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is remanded to the Industrial Relations Commission upon the authority of Riggle v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla., 284 So.2d 194, Opinion filed September 26, 1973, to review the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims of March 15, 1973 certifying Petitioner’s failure to timely deposit transcript costs on appeal to the Commission pursuant to Rule 6, IRC Rules of Procedure.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register: May 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 103)]
[Notices]               
[Page 29996]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28my10-50]                         

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, June 11, 2010.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-13079 Filed 5-26-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
]

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 Th e U w Office s O f

MAR H & ASSOCIATE S 332 5 Wilshir

e Blvd.

. Suit

e 135 0 Lo s Angeles , Gilifomi a9001 0 (213 ) 487-9190 ; Fa

x (213 ) 487-948 4 Davi d Mail i (S M 206917 ) Simo n H Zjnger(SB #102775

) Gordo n Turne r(SB # 22821 5
Attorney s fo

r Entertainmen t

Fusio n Grou p 'HFARTMENTO F
•' • I'UKL I OrrfiAilOM S 

## :0! ; m2\

### A n 0 3

UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.D
. lii th e matte r

of : ENTERTAINMEN T FUSIO N GROU P ) FA A Docket : No t Assigne d ) FAACaseNo
. 2011NM71000 1 ) DMSNo.:FA-2011-129 0 ) ) Judge : Richar d C

. Goodwi n ) TO : HONORABL E GOODWI N

MOTIO N FO RLAT E FILIN G O FANSWE R PLEAS E TAKE NOTIC E tha t Entertainmen t

Fusio n Grou p bring s thi s Motio n for leav e to fil e it s answe r

t o th e complain t

late

. A n agreemen t

wa s entere dint o fo

r Entertainment.Fusio n Grou p t o file it s Answe r

b y Februar

y 3 , 2012
. Th e answe r

wa s no t filedo n Februar

y 3 , 2012 , bu t ha s bee n filed, b y federa

l expres s (wit

h fa x copie s serve do n intereste dparties ) o n February 10 , 2012
. A s ther e appear s t o b e n o prejudic e to al l parties , i t i s requeste db y Entertainmen t Fusio n Grou p that

thei r answe r b e allowe dfiledo n Februar y 10 , 2012
. DATED : February 10 , 201 2 MARH & ASSOCIATE S
By : . / -^lORDO N TURNE R Attorney s fo

r Entertaimnen t Fusio n Grou p

MOTIO N FO RLATE FILIN G O FANSWE R Z:\MyFiles\Civil\3SI 6 Entertainmen t Fusion\Mot4LiteFiling.wp d1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 PROO FO FSERVIC E

I , th e undersigned , say : I a memploye di

n th e Count

y o f Lo s Angeles , Stat e o f

California

. I a move r th e ag e o f

1 8 year s anda

mno t apart y to th e withi n action

. My busines s addres s i s 332 5 Wilshir e Blvd. , Suit e 1350 , Lo s Angeles , Californi a90010
. O n February 10,2012 1 serve dth e foregoin g document s describe dasMOTIO N FO RLAT E FILIN G o n th e intereste dpartie s i n thi s actio n b y faxin g A TRU E COP Y THEREO Faddresse da s follows : Kyl e E
. Lomazo w Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenu e Renton , WA 9805 7 Fax:425-227-100 7 Hon
. RichardC
. Goodwi n Administrativ e La

w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , —2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Washington , D C 2059 0 Fax : 202-366-753 6

Execute dFebruar

y 10 , 201 2 a

t Lo s Angeles , California

.

MOTIO N FORLATE FILIN G O FANSWE R Z.\MyFilesdviHJSI 6 Entertainmenr Fusion\Mot4LateFi}ing.\^'p d
#### Frazier KNIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-737.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 11, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is the third time Knight has appeared before us upon an appeal from an order denying a Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, petition. See Knight v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 229; Knight v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 175 So.2d 98. The specific contention made in this appeal was decided adversely to the petitioner on his last appeal.

Affirmed.
252 La. 113

#### OLYMPIC HOMES, INC. v. Elmer E. ORY.

No. 49187.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1968.

In re: Elmer E. Ory applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 207 So.2d 258.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
# C_2021329EN.01000801.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 May 2021 — Confederación Nacional de Autoescuelas (CNAE) and Others v Asociación para la Defensa de los Intereses Comunes de las Autoescuelas (AUDICA) and Others

(Case C-292/21)

(2021/C 329/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Administración General del Estado, Confederación Nacional de Autoescuelas (CNAE), UTE CNAE-ITT-FORMASTER-ECT

Defendants: Asociación para la Defensa de los Intereses Comunes de las Autoescuelas (AUDICA), Ministerio Fiscal

Question referred

Is a national provision pursuant to which contracts for the provision of road safety awareness and training courses for the purposes of the recovery of driving licence points must be awarded by means of a public service concession compatible with Directive 2006/123/EC, (1) or, as the case may be, with other provisions or principles of European Union law?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

---
Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80257

(303) 844-3157

April 15, 2010

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Mr. Mark Andrew Christensen

FCI - Victorville Medium II 

P.O. Box 5300

Adelanto, CA 92301

#09220-046

RE: 09-8040, 09-8054, Christensen v. Big Horn County Board of Count, et al

Dist/Ag docket: 2:08-CV-00112-ABJ

Dear Appellant: 

Enclosed is a copy of the order and judgment.

Please contact this office if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of the Court 

cc: Joseph H. Azbell

Steven K. Sharpe

Kathleen Swanson

EAS/lab
#### Gary N. WAGGERBY, Appellant, v. Paul Turner HARRIS, Appellee.

No. 70-72.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 3, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward L. DAVIS.

No. 62866.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Edward L. Davis, applying for remedial writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Not considered. No filing in the district court. Transfer to the district court for action.
#### Robert M. BRAKE, Appellant, v. Don SHOEMAKER, the Miami Herald Publishing Company, a Florida corporation, and Fred Sherman, Appellees.

No. 67-661.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 19, 1968.

Robert M. Brake, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis and Dwight Sullivan, Miami, for appellees.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this action for libel the trial court first denied a motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Thereafter the defendants answered and moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to liability. These motions were supported and opposed respectively by evidentiary matter. After hearing but prior to a ruling thereon the pleadings were amended, and defendants renewed their motion to dismiss. Thereupon the trial court entered the order from which the plaintiff now appeals, denying the motions for summary judgment, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and dismissing the cause. On consideration of the record and briefs, we affirm on authority of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686. See also Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094.

Affirmed.
256 La. 624

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Clarence Bill McCORD v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 50734.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 15, 1970.

In re: Clarence Bill McCord applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2074

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(8:01-cr-00533-PJM; 8:05-cv-00255-PJM)

Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion

for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s final order was entered on the

docket on December 14, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on

October 6, 2007.* Because Reyes failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 3 -

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED