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

<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WALKER WINGSAIL AMERICA, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                   0000942652
<NAME>                  WALKER WINGSAIL AMERICA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          2
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    11
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              380
<BONDS>                                            556
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       (124)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       814
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    54
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (54)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (54)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (54)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
(logo)****CURCIO

+COHEN

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC withRegulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”),that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December31, 2016, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within ExhibitB to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report areonly those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trustadvisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the“Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selectedsample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whetherthe Company performed those selected activities in compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures werelimited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report. Our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may haveoccurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected theCompany’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’sReport with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’sReport as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, for the Platform, isfairly stated in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen,CPA’s, P.C.

 

 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017

 

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS PC7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800  FAX:212 557 9819   WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.1


Amendment to the IPG Photonics Corporation 
Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan, as amended


14. TERMINATION AND MERGER OF THE PLAN
14.1     Effective September 11, 2015 (the ‘Merger Date’), the Plan is merged into the IPG Photonics Corporation 2006 Incentive Compensation Plan, As Amended and Restated Effective June 2, 2015 (the ‘2006 ICP’).
14.2     Effective as of the Merger Date, the shares of Common Stock available for issuance under the Plan no longer shall be available for issuance under the Plan and shall be transferred to the 2006 ICP.
B

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P   Document 64-2   Filed 01/25/23    Page 1 of 2   PageID 1365

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P   Document 64-2   Filed 01/25/23    Page 2 of 2   PageID 1366
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          18,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,987
<PP&E>                                         580,824
<DEPRECIATION>                               (179,274)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 547,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,054
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           313
<OTHER-SE>                                     263,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   547,707
<SALES>                                        399,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               399,805
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,944
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,944
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>
* 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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ENVER KARAFILI,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Warden and

EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Attorney

General of the State of California,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 09-55388

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01372-BENNLS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 2, 2011** 

Pasadena, California

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Enver Karafili appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

habeas petition as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We affirm.

FILED

SEP 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

The district court did not err in finding that Karafili’s mental condition was

not so severe that he was unable to file a timely federal petition. See Bills v. Clark,

628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2010). As for Karafili’s limited English skills,

the record does not establish that he requested and was unable to obtain a translator

or that it was his limited English skills that caused him to file an untimely federal

petition. Cf. Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2006). Equitable

tolling was correctly denied.

We decline to certify the uncertified issues raised by Karafili.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,882
<SECURITIES>                                    43,827
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,133
<PP&E>                                           4,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                     533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,757
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,759
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,312
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,613)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,613)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013129EN.01002002.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/20

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Henkel and Henkel France v Commission

(Case T-64/12) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Request seeking to obtain the transmission to the French competition authority of certain documents contained in the Commission’s file relating to competition proceedings concerning the European market for consumer detergents - Use in the context of national proceedings concerning the French detergents sector - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 129/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) and Henkel France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: R. Polley, T. Kuhn, F. Brunet and É. Paroche, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 7 December 2011 (Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — and Case 09/0007 F) whereby the Commission refused to act on the applicants’ request seeking the transmission to the French competition authority, in the context of Case 09/0007 F concerning the French detergents sector, of several documents produced in Case COMP/39.579, and, secondly, for an order by the General Court requiring the Commission to authorise the applicants to rely on the documents at issue in the proceedings before the French competition authority or before the competent French court in the context of an appeal against the decision of the French competition authority, and for any other measure that the Court deems appropriate.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Unilever PLC and Unilever NV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Unilever PLC and Unilever NV.

| 3. | Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and Henkel France shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and Henkel France shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,382
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,307
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      2,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,200
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,200
<LOANS>                                        123,530
<ALLOWANCE>                                        577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 148,342
<DEPOSITS>                                     117,307
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,924
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 148,342
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,927
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  117
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   371
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,415
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,447
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,473
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,942
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       78
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    929
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         929
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       519
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.47
<LOANS-NON>                                         20
<LOANS-PAST>                                        99
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   147
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    504
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   497
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  577
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               577
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:22-cr-00378-N Document 72-7 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 866
Case 3:22-cr-00378-N Document 72-7 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 867
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

ROMACK RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, 

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 

INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1825-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Romack Resource Solutions, Ltd. (“Romack”) sued Defendant 

Advanced Technology Innovations, LLC (“Advanced Technology”) for breach of their 

Professional Services Agreement. [Doc. 6 at 1]. The Court previously granted 

Romack’s motion for default judgment but rejected Romack’s request for “$12,792.50 

in attorney’s fees” because Romack’s attached affidavit failed to “specif[y] where 

th[at] amount[] came from.”1 But the Court let Romack try again, requiring Romack 

to file a motion to attorney fees with a declaration “showing the hourly rate, hours 

worked, what the work was for, and how the hourly rate and hours worked were 

reasonable given the context of the case.”2

Before the Court is Romack’s second bite at the apple. [Doc. 15]. Romack now 

seeks $11,410 in attorney fees and provides a one-page declaration of Marta Milan. 

1

 Doc. 13 at 5.

2 Id. at 5.

Case 3:22-cv-01825-X Document 18 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 173
2

The declaration says that Cuccia Wilson Sanderson, PLLC “spent 39.3 hours 

prosecuting this case.”3 But that’s about it. Beyond that, it alleges in conclusory 

fashion only that (1) “[t]he fees were reasonable for the services performed,” and 

(2) “[t]he fees charged are those customarily charged in this area for the same or 

similar services.”4 Once again, the Court has no idea “where th[at] amount[] came 

from.”5 The Court doesn’t know which attorneys worked on the case, the attorneys’ 

experience levels, the attorneys’ hourly rates, the tasks performed, or the hours spent 

on each task.6 Romack’s failure to provide that information hobbles the necessary 

reasonableness determination that the Court must conduct.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Romack’s motion for attorney fees. [Doc. 15]. 

Romack may file a new motion to recover attorney fees by September 6, 2023 

providing the information specified above. The Court warns Romack that this will be 

its last opportunity to request attorney fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2023.

___________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

 Doc. 15-1 at 1.

4 Id. The motion itself says that the hourly rates were $375 for partners and $305 for 

associates. But that’s not in a declaration format, and it doesn’t specify which attorneys charged those 

rates.

5

 Doc. 13 at 5.

6

 A time-keeping log often helps in that assessment.

Case 3:22-cv-01825-X Document 18 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 174
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1994 
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         110,702
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  422,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                   50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               603,226
<PP&E>                                         1,928,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                 99,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,516,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          459,675
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15,775
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,111,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,516,849
<SALES>                                        1,324,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,326,451
<CGS>                                          1,179,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,179,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,207,446
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               40,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             15,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,084,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,090,510)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,090,510)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>