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  BALANCE  SHEET AS AT APRIL 29, 2000 AND THE  RELATED  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE  THIRTEEN-WEEK  PERIOD ENDED ON APRIL 29, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000879123
<NAME>                        Goody's Family Clothing, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-29-2000
<CASH>                             45,944
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       232,665
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  295,342
<PP&E>                            198,141
<DEPRECIATION>                     79,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    419,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             190,793
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           21,911
<OTHER-SE>                        191,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      419,957
<SALES>                           278,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  278,283
<CGS>                             199,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      72,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     6,849
<INCOME-TAX>                        2,568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 4,281
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                             207
<NET-INCOME>                        4,074
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.12




</TABLE>
# C_2016202EN.01019001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/190 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/190

---

Article 329

(ex Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a TEC)

(ex Articles 27a

e

b

a

1.   Member States which wish to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in one of the areas covered by the Treaties, with the exception of fields of exclusive competence and the common foreign and security policy, shall address a request to the Commission, specifying the scope and objectives of the enhanced cooperation proposed. The Commission may submit a proposal to the Council to that effect. In the event of the Commission not submitting a proposal, it shall inform the Member States concerned of the reasons for not doing so.

Authorisation to proceed with the enhanced cooperation referred to in the first subparagraph shall be granted by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2.   The request of the Member States which wish to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves within the framework of the common foreign and security policy shall be addressed to the Council. It shall be forwarded to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who shall give an opinion on whether the enhanced cooperation proposed is consistent with the Union's common foreign and security policy, and to the Commission, which shall give its opinion in particular on whether the enhanced cooperation proposed is consistent with other Union policies. It shall also be forwarded to the European Parliament for information.

Authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation shall be granted by a decision of the Council acting unanimously.

---
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Johnnie Hargrave, * From the 91st District Court

of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. CV1744561.

Vs. No. 11-23-00124-CV * June 29, 2023

Brecha Roja Land Co., LLC, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Johnnie Hargrave’s motion to dismiss this appeal 

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Johnnie Hargrave.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS GARCIA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KYEONG PARK, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-16840 

D.C. No. 3:21-cv-09048-JD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges 

California state prisoner Jose Luis Garcia appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-16840 

2004). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Garcia failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately 

indifferent in treating Garcia’s foot issues. See id. at 1057-60 (prison officials act 

with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard a risk to the 

prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of opinion 

concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply2426Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Mark W. Dixon (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 25, 2021 - 6:42pmThe Capitol campus and grounds are historic icons of great importance to our nation, and it's heartbreaking to see the fencing surrounding it and the White House. It is a daily reminder of the lows to which Americans can sink.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
July 28, 2008

28801

#### "B" Children, In re

Affirmed
# C_2016202EN.01014701.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/147 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/147

---

Article 220

(ex Articles 302 to 304 TEC)

(ex Articles 302 to 304 TEC)

1.   The Union shall establish all appropriate forms of cooperation with the organs of the United Nations and its specialised agencies, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The Union shall also maintain such relations as are appropriate with other international organisations.

2.   The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission shall implement this Article.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alteon Inc. (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of
the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 10, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Kenneth I. MochKenneth I. MochPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
 Date: May 10, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Elizabeth A. ODellElizabeth A. ODellVice President, Finance(principal financial officer)
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. 28
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dean L. Cash,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of ATEL  Financial  Services,  LLC,
General  Partner of ATEL Cash  Distribution  Fund IV, L.P. (the  "Partnership"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

1. The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

Date:        August 12, 2004



/s/ Dean L. Cash
----------------------
Dean L. Cash
President and Chief Executive
Officer of General Partner


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to the  Partnership  and  will  be  retained  by the  Partnership  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### VIGORETTI v. HILL.

No. 6583.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

June 24, 1938.

Francis D. Saitta, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for relator-appellant

Herman F. Reich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sunbury, Pa., for appellee.

Before DAVIS and BIGGS, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be Heard on the transcript of record from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause, 18 F.Supp. *337,*be, and the same is hereby affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply425Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Pia (not verified) (not verified)PermalinkOctober 2, 2019 - 7:07amI have visited the cemetery several times but because they also have a private dog walking program,  and we do lot of voluntary work at the cemetery - helping with the maintenance.  Dog walking program is permitted by membership only - "dogs/owners" pay annual membership.  Also they have  weddings there, Yoga classes, tours and  5K (Dead man's run around on October 5th, 2019 its  and kids run).
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### In the Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York et al., Petitioners, against Robert F. Wagner, Individually and as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 16, 1969.

*43*Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon*for petitioners.

*Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Counsel (Leo A. Larkin, Saul Moskoff*and *Edwin Margolis*of counsel), for respondents.

*Condon & Kloeke, amicus curiae*for Police Conference, State of New York.

Irving L. Levey, J.

This is an application by the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, directing the Mayor, the Police Commissioner and the Commissioner of Labor of the City of New York to establish a departmental grievance procedure for the uniformed members of the department, in accordance with Executive Order No. 45, dated March 31, 1958.

The Mayor, at the instance and suggestion of the court, submitted an affidavit on February 26, 1959, indicating his desire, unequivocally, to explore the question of grievance procedure, and, in effect, assuring the petitioners that the problem was being very seriously considered from every possible angle.

Specifically, he stated:

> “In September of 1958, in recognition of the obvious inapplicability to the uniformed police of the specific grievance procedures set forth in Executive Order No. 49, the petitioners and others similarly situated, conferred with me in the presence of Commissioner Kennedy and Commissioner Felix concerning the possibility of establishing grievance procedures not necessarily the same as those provided in Executive Order No. 49 and other than. those grievance procedures available under the present Pules and Procedures and practices of the Police Department of the City of New York.

> “ It is apparent that the problems thus presented were and are complex, difficult, and controversial, involving important matters for which there is no precedent in the City of New York. The study of these factors has not yet been concluded. When a final determination has been reached as to the desirability and wisdom of the establishment of grievance procedure for the uniformed police, other than that now existing, the necessary steps will then be taken to effectuate the policy as ultimately determined. ’ ’

In view of such evident recognition of the petitioners’ problems and the Mayor’s obvious determination to leave no stone *44unturned in reaching an equitable solution, the petitioners are urged to exercise a bit more patience and thus afford the respondents the fullest opportunity to discharge their pledge.

Accordingly, the present application will be denied without prejudice to a renewal either after a final expression from the city officials or after a reasonable period has elapsed without a decision having been made.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply610Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Karen Boyd (no... (not verified)PermalinkNovember 5, 2018 - 2:34pmJim - what a wonderful experience and fun thing to have to do in a job. You surely did a great job. Can you pick out my tree?
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# 1.png

# 2.png

# 3.png

# 4.png
67 P.3d 790

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Miyamoto v. Wahiawa Gen. Hosp.

22930

05/02/2003

Denied
Gary J. Ohlinger 

4338 Thornton Rd. SE 

Olympia, WA98513 

6/28/10 

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

400 7* St SW, RoomPL-400 

Washington, DC 20591-0001 

ft&rExefflptiofl-No^754 from CFR (FASr^eGtiGn)-91.l09(^^ 

Document No FAA-2008-0907 

Sirs: 

A Notice of expiration of the exemption above was received 6/22/2010. 

I request that this exemption be extended an additional two years from the 8/31/2010 date 

due to expire. 

Also, my new home address is: 

Gary J. Ohlinger 

4338 Thornton Rd. SE 

Olympia, WA 98513 

I can be reached at 360.491.3321 if there are any questions. 

My email address is: gjohlinger@,comcast.net. 

Thank you, 

1479373CFI
June 16, 1998

20576

#### Samonte v. State

Affirmed
#### Henry Reuss, Plaintiff, *v.*Nicholas Moiseenko, Defendant. Nicholas Moiseenko, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry Reuss, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

February 9, 1959.

(Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn.)

*Rein, Mound & Cotton*for Nicholas Moiseenko, plaintiff and defendant.

*Alexander Funk*for Henry Reuss, plaintiff.

*Thomas J. Flood*for Henry Reuss, defendant.

*425Aron Steuer, J.

This is a motion to consolidate two actions arising out of the same vehicular collision. There is no real opposition to the relief as such. Each of the actions is by one of the drivers against the other. It appears that one of the plaintiffs-defendants is a resident of Akron, Ohio, and he has never been examined before trial. A motion to examine him in the action in which he was plaintiff (an action pending in the Municipal Court) was granted with the proviso that the examination be held five days before trial. His opponent now desires to make it a condition of granting the consolidation that the examination be held at a date to be fixed by the court.

The matter is not quite as simple as would appear on the surface. The action in the Municipal Court is for property damage and the matter in a monetary sense is of no great significance. There is considerable doubt whether he would, if ordered, appear for examination. This would give his opponent a great tactical advantage as in the consolidated action he could have the answer stricken out. This should not deter granting the relief as a nonresident who seeks affirmative relief in our courts must conform to our procedures even at his own inconvenience. But all of this is reasoning on a false premise. Quite obviously the real interest in the case is that of the insurance carrier and it might be seriously prejudiced if its assured should fail to appear. This is mentioned, however, merely to show that it was not overlooked. The veil of anonymity which the carriers insist on has been respected when it has been to their advantage and cannot be thrust aside because it would be to their detriment. So the nonresident is to be regarded as having the choice of protecting his interests or not, as he sees fit.

Neither technically nor practically is the decision of the Municipal Court fixing a date for examination a bar to this application. Technically it is not an order in the same action. Practically it was to be expected that the examination would take place some time before the trial of the other action.

The motion is granted. Cross motion is granted to the extent that the examination of defendant is directed to be held on March 3, 1959, at Special Term, Part II, at 10:30 a.m.