alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Libelant-Appellee, v. An Article of Device labeled in part, “FIRMATRON BY NORRUTH” etc., Claimant-Appellant.

No. 121, Docket 28242.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 31, 1963.

Decided Nov. 20, 1963.

Jerome J. Londin, New York City, for claimant-appellant.

Martin R. Pollner, Asst. U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for libelant-appellee.

Before SWAN, CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the United States of America seeks to condemn for misbranding the claimant’s electronic device for removing feminine wrinkles. The advertising language is certainly bombastic ; at any rate it seems to have offended the trial judge, who summarily granted a default (which he refused to reopen) for claimant’s failure to answer interrogatories and to proceed to the depositions sought of its officers. But even though we may sympathize with the judge’s reaction, the claimant was nevertheless entitled to its day in court, which the judge’s summary orders denied it.

Here about nine months after the bringing of the action and nearly four months after the claimant had filed its answer of denial, the libelant filed voluminous interrogatories. These were of a truly surprising nature and detail; it is strange that claimant did not move for protective orders to save itself “annoyance, expense, embarrassment, or *498oppression.” F.R.Civ.P. 33. For they required detailed proof of every possible element of the libelant’s ease, such as the name, address, and qualifications of each physician, scientist, or lay person who had knowledge or was of the opinion not only that the seized “Firmatron” was effective for its listed purposes, but also was *not*effective for such purposes. The interrogatories formally numbered 39, but many of these consisted of 13 or 14 numbered parts, so that some 150 or more detailed specifications were listed. But claimant did not object, only merely sought time to answer, and was not in default in its times stipulated when on March 15, 1963, it moved for an order extending time to answer the interrogatories until September 30 and to take the depositions of its officers until October 30. This motion the judge heard on March 27. and denied on March 29, even though meanwhile the libelant had filed an affidavit requesting that “the claimant be required to answer the Government’s interrogatories within one week after a decision of this Court,” and that the claimant’s officers “be ordered to have their depositions taken one week thereafter and to continue from day to day until completed.” This concession by the Government was apparently overlooked by the judge in declaring *sua sponte*that claimant was in default and refusing thereafter, with some sarcasm, to reopen the default. This was too harsh. Gill v. Stolow, 2 Cir., 240 F.2d 669; Syracuse Broadcasting Corp. v. New-house, 2 Cir., 271 F.2d 910, 914; Padovani v. Bruchhausen, 2 Cir., 293 F.2d 546, 548.

The orders are reversed and the action is remanded for the opening of the default.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000015511
<NAME> THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      838
<ALLOWANCES>                                        71
<INVENTORY>                                        219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,474
<PP&E>                                          22,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,260
<BONDS>                                          1,335
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,402
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,193<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,865<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                       423
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>RESTATEMENT REFLECTED HEREIN IS THE RESULT OF RECLASSIFICATIONS TO PRIOR
PERIODS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT PERIOD PRESENTATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 115 

To require the Department of State to establish a policy regarding the 

use of location-tracking consumer devices by employees at diplomatic 

and consular facilities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas (for himself and Mr. MCCAUL) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Department of State to establish a policy 

regarding the use of location-tracking consumer devices 

by employees at diplomatic and consular facilities, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Diplomats 

5 from Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act’’. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 115 IH

1 SEC. 2. SECURING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CON2 SULAR FACILITIES AGAINST CYBERSURVEIL3 LANCE. 

4 (a) POLICY ON LOCATION-TRACKING CONSUMER DE5 VICES.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the en6 actment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall establish 

7 a policy on the use of location-tracking consumer devices, 

8 including GPS-enabled devices, at United States diplo9 matic and consular facilities by United States Government 

10 employees, contractors, locally employed staff, and mem11 bers of other agencies deployed to or stationed at such 

12 facilities. 

13 (b) SECURITY BRIEFING.—Existing and new employ14 ees at United States diplomatic and consular facilities, in15 cluding contractors, locally employed staff, and members 

16 of other agencies deployed to or stationed at such facili17 ties, shall, as a part of the security briefings provided to 

18 such employees, be informed of the policy described in sub19 section (a) and given instructions on the use of location20 tracking consumer devices both on and off the premises 

21 of such facilities. 

22 (c) COORDINATION.—The Secretary of State shall co23 ordinate with the heads of any other agencies whose em24 ployees are deployed to or stationed at United States dip25 lomatic and consular facilities in the formulation of the 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 115 IH

1 policy described in subsection (a) and the dissemination 

2 of such policy pursuant to subsection (b). 

3 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the for4 mulation of the policy described in subsection (a), the Sec5 retary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign 

6 Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Com7 mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on the 

8 details of such policy. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1138 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1138

  To reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2019

   Mr. Reed (for himself and Mr. Higgins of New York) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

    (a) Reauthorization.--Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration 
Project Act (Public Law 96-368; 42 U.S.C. 2021a note) is amended by 
striking ``$5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981'' 
and inserting ``$75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 
2026''.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 
that describes--
            (1) the volumes, origins, and types of radioactive waste at 
        the Western New York Service Center in West Valley, New York;
            (2) what options have been identified for disposal of each 
        such type of radioactive waste;
            (3) what is known about the costs of, and timeframes for, 
        each such option;
            (4) the benefits and challenges of each such option, 
        according to the State of New York and the Department of 
        Energy; and
            (5) as of the date of enactment of this Act--
                    (A) how much has been spent on the disposal of 
                radioactive waste associated with the demonstration 
                project prescribed by section 2(a) of the West Valley 
                Demonstration Project Act; and
                    (B) what volumes and types of radioactive waste 
                have been disposed of from the Western New York Service 
                Center.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HYPERION SOFTWARE CORPORATION FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          52,966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,801
<PP&E>                                          85,651
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,805
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           219
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,180
<SALES>                                         50,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,523
<CGS>                                           19,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,560
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,115
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
 
 
 We consent to the inclusion of our report dated December 20, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Media Recovery, Inc., dba SpotSee Holdings, as of September 30, 2019 and 2018, and for the years ended September 30, 2019, 2018, and 2017, as an exhibit to the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Southwest Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  We consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in Registration Statement on Form N-2 of Capital Southwest Corporation (File No. 333-232492) and in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 of Capital Southwest Corporation (File No. 333-227117, effective August 30, 2018; File No. 333-207296, effective October 5, 2015; File No. 333-177433, effective October 21, 2011; File No. 333-177432, effective October 21, 2011; File No. 333-118681, effective August 31, 2004).
 
 
 /s/ Whitley Penn LLP
 
 Dallas, Texas
 December 20, 2019
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.16    
  


Ultimate Electronics, Inc.

Bonus Plans

for Fiscal Years Ended

January 31, 2001 and January 31, 2002  


        Under our bonus plans, our executive officers may be awarded bonuses from an annual bonus pool, quarterly performance bonuses and discretionary bonuses determined
by the Board. The parameters under the annual bonus pool are changed from year to year at the discretion of the Board. 


        Fiscal 2001.    In fiscal 2001, the annual bonus pool was equal to $380,000 plus 14% of pretax earnings, prior to any bonus
accrual, in excess of $23,800,000. 


        Fiscal 2002.    In fiscal 2002, the annual bonus pool was equal to 12.25% of pretax earnings, prior to any bonus accrual, in
excess of $26,500,000 up to $31,200,000, plus 14% of pretax earnings, prior to any bonus accrual, in excess of $31,200,000. 











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.16
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 11

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF HAWAII, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                      Computation of Loss Per Common Share

                         Five years ended July 31, 1996

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         1996             1995            1994            1993             1992
                                                     ----------        ---------       ----------     ----------        ---------
<S>                                                  <C>               <C>             <C>            <C>               <C>
Loss from continuing operations 
  before extraordinary credit applicable
  to common shareholders                             $ (373,358)        (807,926)      (1,423,453)      (997,381)        (966,427)

Discontinued operations                                    --               --              --           (23,398)        (121,352)

Extraordinary credit                                       --               --              --              --            507,000
                                                     ----------        ---------       ----------     ----------        ---------
           Net loss applicable to common 
              shareholders                           $ (373,358)        (807,926)      (1,423,453)    (1,020,779)        (580,779)
                                                     ==========        =========       ==========     ==========        =========
Divided by weighted average number
  of common share outstanding during
  the period                                          1,032,683        1,032,683        1,032,683      1,032,683        1,032,683
                                                     ==========        =========       ==========     ==========        =========
Loss per common share:
    Loss before extraordinary credit                       (.36)            (.78)           (1.38)          (.97)           (0.93)
    Discontinued operations                                --               --              --              (.02)            (.12)
    Extraordinary credit                                   --               --              --              --                .49
                                                     ----------        ---------       ----------     ----------        ---------
           Net loss                                        (.36)            (.78)           (1.38)          (.99)           (0.56)
                                                     ==========        =========       ==========     ==========        =========
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Harvey Green, Jr., Respondent.

—Order unanimously reversed on the law, motion denied, indictment reinstated, and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: County Court erred in concluding that delays occurring subsequent to the filing of an accusatory instrument are attributable to the People unless defendant expressly states that, in requesting or in consenting to an adjournment, he is waiving his rights under CPL 30.30. Defendant’s request for, or consent to, an adjournment *is*an express waiver of those rights *(see, People v Meierdiercks,*68 NY2d 613; *People v Kopciowski,*68 NY2d 615; *People v Worley,*66 NY2d 523, 527).

The court correctly found that the People announced their readiness six months and 14 days after the filing of the accusatory instrument. The court erred, however, in failing to exclude 19 days from this period as time chargeable to the *1037defendant. Defendant expressly requested a two-day adjournment because his counsel was unavailable, and on appeal, he concedes that this two-day period should have been excluded from the time charged to the People. We also conclude that a 17-day period immediately preceding that adjournment should have been excluded. Defense counsel indicated to the court that she needed time to review a lab report before defendant decided whether to accept a plea offer. The City Court Judge indicated that he would give her that time, and when asked if the 17-day period would be sufficient, defense counsel replied affirmatively. Counsel’s indication of the need for time to consider the plea offer was, in effect, a request for an adjournment and constituted an express waiver by defendant of the 17-day delay *(see, People v Meierdiercks, supra; People v Worley, supra; People v Rushlow,*94 AD2d 933). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.—Dismiss Indictment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2642-S, Mail Stop 0268

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250-0268

Service

 

June 26, 2017

MEMORANDUM TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD 

FROM: Miles V. McEvoy 

Deputy Administrator

National Organic Program (NOP)

SUBJECT: Response to National Organic Standards Board Recommendation (April 2017 

Meeting)

Background

This memorandum responds to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendation

made at its April 19-21, 2017, meeting in Denver, Colorado. 

Summary of Recommendation 

Petitioned Substances. The NOSB recommended one amendment to the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List). This section of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) organic regulations includes synthetic substances allowed in crop and 

livestock production, nonsynthetic substances prohibited in crop and livestock production, and 

non-organic substances allowed in the handling of organic products. 

Substance Section NOSB Recommendation

L-Methionine Handling: 205.605(b) L-Methionine was classified as 

synthetic. 

The motion to add LMethionine to the National List

with the following annotation 

passed: “for use in nutritionally 

complete pediatric enteral

formulas based on soy protein”

Discussion and Response

Petitioned Substances: L-Methionine (Handling)

The NOSB considered a petition to allow L-Methionine, an essential amino acid, in soy-based 

nutritionally complete pediatric enteral formulas. The NOSB concluded that without addition of 
MEMORANDUM TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD 

Page 2

L-Methionine, soy-based formulas would be nutritionally deficient. The NOSB passed the 

recommendation to add L-Methionine for this specific use to section 205.605(b) of the National 

List.

AMS Response: 

AMS is reviewing the recommendation to add L-Methionine to the National List. 

Summary

AMS acknowledges and sincerely appreciates the time that NOSB members provide to develop 

recommendations. In addition, AMS supports NOSB’s vital role in representing the diversity of 

the organic community to enhance organic regulatory implementation and ensure organic 

product integrity.
Exhibit 23.1


              Consent of Independent Public Accountants


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports included and incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K/A, into
the company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statements, File Numbers,
033-65256, 033-65254, 033-65890, 333-07735, 333-46791, 333-46795, 333-46797,
333-46809, and 333-46811.  It should be noted that we have not audited any
financial statements of the Company subsequent to April 30, 1998 or performed
any audit procedures on any financial statements of the Company subsequent
to the April 30, 1998 financial statements and subsequent to the date of our
report.




                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Kansas City, Missouri,
February 11, 2000


<PAGE>