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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         124,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,159
<PP&E>                                     155,817,500
<DEPRECIATION>                              80,544,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,397,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,931
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  75,273,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,397,111
<SALES>                                     20,031,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,088,664
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  703,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,385,356
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,385,356
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.46


</TABLE>
257 La. 987

#### UNITED SURINAME TRADING COMPANY v. C. B. FOX COMPANY et al.

No. 51176.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 10, 1971.

In re: C.. B. Fox Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 242 So.2d 259.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.6

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-38521, 333-38523, 333-38525, 333-38527,
333-38531, 333-38533, 333-38537, 333-38539, 333-48167, 333-61395, 333-65688 and
333-65704), Forms S-4 (Nos. 333-61401 and 333-47926) and Form S-3 (No.
333-64979) of Security Capital Group Incorporated of our report dated 14 March
2001 relating to the financial statements of Security Capital U.S. Realty, which
is included in the Security Capital Group Incorporated Annual Report on Form
10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers S.a.r.l.                   Luxembourg, 28 March 2002
Reviseur d'entreprises
Represented by





Amaury Evrard
#### Wilson THOMPSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-16.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender; John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender and Robert C. Parker, Jr., Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction in a jury trial on charges of receiving stolen property for which he was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein, and our consideration thereof requires a conclusion that no error was committed in the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE04360A174
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this First Amendment
to Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report dated January 25, 2000,
which appears in GenRad, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 1, 2000. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated January 25, 2000 relating to the financial statement schedule,
which appears in such Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
August 17, 2000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. KOJI S. STEWART, a/k/a Bling, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00104-FDW-CH-5; 3:08−cv−00487−FDW)

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Koji S. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Koji S. Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. 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 Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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
<PAGE>

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


         We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Carrier 1
International S.A. on Form S-1 of our report dated February 11, 2000 (March 1,
2000 as to the initial public offering described in Note 14), appearing in the
Prospectus, which is part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference
to us under the headings "Summary Consolidated Financial Data," "Selected
Consolidated Financial Data" and "Experts" in such Prospectus.

         Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of Carrier
1 International S.A., listed in Item 16(b). This financial statement schedule is
the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement
schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE EXPERTA AG



David Wilson                                                  Aniko Smith

Zurich, Switzerland

August 17, 2000
<PAGE>


                                                                       EXHIBIT 5
                                                     OPINION OF BINGHAM DANA LLP


                                BINGHAM DANA LLP
                               150 Federal Street
                                Boston, MA 02110

                               September 21, 2000


Wave Systems Corp.
480 Pleasant Street
Lee, MA 01238

       Re:  REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-3

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel for Wave Systems Corp., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), in connection with the registration under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Act"), of 1,182,678 shares of Class A common stock, $0.01
par value per share, of the Company (the "Shares"), to be offered by certain
stockholders of the Company (the "Selling Stockholders"), pursuant to a
Registration Statement on Form S-3, filed by the Company with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 21, 2000.

         We have reviewed the corporate proceedings of the Company with respect
to the authorization of the issuance of the Shares. We have also examined and
relied upon originals or copies of such agreements, instruments, corporate
records, certificates and other documents as we have deemed necessary or
appropriate as a basis for the opinions hereinafter expressed. In our
examination, we have assumed the genuineness of all signatures, the conformity
to the originals of all documents reviewed by us as copies, the authenticity and
completeness of all original documents reviewed by us in original or copy form,
and the legal competence of each individual executing any document. We have
further assumed that the registration requirements of the Act and all applicable
requirements of state laws regulating the sale of securities will have been duly
satisfied.

         Subject to the limitations set forth below, we have made such
examination of law as we have deemed necessary for the purposes of this opinion.
This opinion is limited solely to the Delaware General Corporation Law as
applied by courts located in Delaware, the applicable provisions of the Delaware
Constitution and the reported judicial decisions interpreting those laws.

         Based upon and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the
Shares have been duly authorized and validly issued and are fully paid and
non-assessable.

         We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                                Very truly yours,

                                                /s/ Bingham Dana LLP

                                                BINGHAM DANA LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1996
<CASH>                                         174
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,813
<ALLOWANCES>                                   307
<INVENTORY>                                    10,813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,623
<PP&E>                                         47,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 68,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,709
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       76
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,060)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   68,584
<SALES>                                        101,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,011
<CGS>                                          88,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  88,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               76
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,009)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,909)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 2,220
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .11
        


</TABLE>
# C_2014249EN.01002901.xml

| 31.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/29

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2014/508/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(2014/C 249/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision 2014/508/CFSP (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014 (4) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web sites in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu. |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ L 226, 30.7.2014, p. 23.

2

(3)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

3

(4)  OJ L 226, 30.7.2014, p. 16.

4

---
#### ESTATE of Frank L. MAGUTH et al., Appellants, v. GREYHOUND RENT A CAR, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 2, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James C. Downey, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18141]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR 
part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), 
hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the 
transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

Time and Date: Closed teleconference of the Committee on Strategy of 
the National Science Board, to be held Tuesday, August 28, 2018 from 
4:00 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. EDT.

Place: This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Chair's opening remarks; discussion of FY 
2020 NSF, NSB, and OIG budget requests.

Contact Person For More Information: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Kathy Jacquart, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. 
Telephone: (703) 292-7000. You may find meeting information and updates 
(time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/notices.jsp#sunshine.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-18141 Filed 8-17-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

WYOMING SAWMILLS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

2010-5160

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 07-CV-861, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J ULIE A. W EIS , Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones &Wilder, LLP of Portland, Oregon, argued for plaintiffappellant.

L. M ISHA P REHEIM , Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department ofJustice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellee. With him on the brief were T ONY W EST

, Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON

, Director, and B RYANT G. S NEE , Deputy Director. Of
counsel on the brief was J OSHUA S CHNELL , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, of Washington, DC.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (G AJARSA

, S CHALL , and P ROST

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 20, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T FEBRUARY 2, 20 09 T HOMAS K . K AHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 10 75 1

D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 61 66 9 C V-KAM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us W ILLIAM L. DORNBROCK, et c., et a l., Defen da nt s, INTELEC, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 8- 15 85 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 61 66 9 C V-KAM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs usW ILLIAM L. DORNBROCK,

a.k .a. Ro be rt Wil li am

Lee, INLAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defen da nt s, INTELEC, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (Feb ru ary 2, 2 00 9) Befo re DUBINA an d C ARNES, Cir cu it Ju dg es , and GOLDBERG, Ju dg e. * PER CURI AM: Thi s i s an ap pe al fro m

th e Ja nu ary 16 , 20 08 , fin al ord er o f th e d is tri ctco ur t th aten te red jud gm en t fo ll owi ng a be nc h t ria l. The jud gm en t o rd ered th e fo recl os ur e o f a Fo rt Lau de rd al e co nd om in iu m to sat is fy de li nq ue nt tax li ab il it ie s of tax pa y er Will ia m

Dorn br oc k. In te le c, In c. in te rv en edin th e cas e cl ai m in g t ha t it own s t he co nd om in iu m at i ss ue .

Honora ble Richard W. Goldberg , United States Court of I nterna tional Trade J udg e, sitti ng * by desig nation. 2Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , read in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , and ha vi ng th e

be ne fit of o ral arg um en t, we af fir m th e d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e go ve rn m en t b as edon th e d is tri ctco ur t’s t ho ro ug h a nd well -rea so ne d o rd er fi le d o n Ja nu ary 16 , 20 08

. AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                META GROUP, INC.

                    EXHIBIT TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED           FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                           JUNE 30,                            JUNE 30,
                                                               -----------------------------       -----------------------------
                                                                   2000              1999              2000              1999
                                                               -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                                            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Net income.................................................    $ 2,791,000       $ 2,048,000       $ 4,575,000       $ 3,357,000
                                                               ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
Weighted average number of common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding:

      Common shares
        outstanding during the period .....................     10,738,153        10,850,788        10,666,186        11,337,887

      Common share equivalents - options
        to purchase common shares .........................      1,094,076           466,195         1,256,424           797,980
                                                               -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
               Total ......................................     11,832,229        11,316,983        11,922,610        12,135,867
                                                               ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
Net income per diluted common share .......................    $       .24       $       .18       $       .38       $       .28
                                                               ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
Net income per basic common share .........................    $       .26       $       .19       $       .43       $       .30
                                                               ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========


</TABLE>





                                       23