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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF OPEN PLAN  SYSTEMS,  INC.  AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30,  1996 AND THE  RELATED
STATEMENTS  OF INCOME  AND CASH  FLOWS  FOR THE NINE  MONTHS  THEN  ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.  
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                          9,554,080
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,661,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (75,376)
<INVENTORY>                                     5,384,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,000,053
<PP&E>                                          2,857,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (576,478)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,548,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,160,797
<BONDS>                                           150,815
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       18,775,109
<OTHER-SE>                                        433,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,548,545
<SALES>                                        14,946,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,946,370
<CGS>                                           9,962,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   9,962,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   15,376
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                130,555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,841,939
<INCOME-TAX>                                      169,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,672,939
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,672,939
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0

        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALFONSO PERCY PEW,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 342 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

and Motion Requesting Allowance of Appeal be Held in a Stay are DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), David T. Hung, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Medivation, Inc. (the Company), and C. Patrick Machado, Chief Business Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that,
to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set his hand hereto as of the 5th day of November, 2010.



|                        |  |                                       |  |                        |  |        |  |                                                   
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David T. Hung, M.D. |  |                                       |  | /s/ C. Patrick Machado
|Name:                   |  | David T. Hung, M.D.                   |  |                        |  | Name:  |  | C. Patrick Machado                                
|Title:                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |  |                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Business Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Medivation, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### CAFFARELLI et al. v. REASONOVER et al.

No. 8889.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 26, 1932.

Graham, Graham & Graham, of Brownsville, for appellants.

A. B. Crane, of Raymondville, for appel-lees.

SMITH, J.

One of the' appellees has confessed error, and the remaining appellees have filed no reply to appellants’ brief.

The appeal is from an order sustaining a plea in abatement to a suit to set aside a judgment previously rendered against appellants in the trial court. It was alleged as ground for setting aside the former judgment that counsel for all parties had an agreement, with the knowledge and approval of the trial judge, that the plaintiffs in that suit would not attempt to try the ease without first having it set for a day certain, and notice thereof given opposing counsel, who resided in another county. The case had been continued from time to time by plaintiffs, necessitating futile attendance at each term by out-of-county attorneys.- Such agreements are proper, and often made. It had the approval of the trial judge, should have been observed, and its breach entitled appellants to a new trial.

Appellants did not learn of -the rendition of judgment against them in the former > suit until after adjournment of the term, but did know of it in time to perfect and prosecute writ of error, if so minded. Appellants, however, forebore appeal, and chose to make a direct attack upon the judgment; but the trial judge sustained a plea in abatement thereto, upon the sole ground that appellants’ remedy lay in writ of error, and not otherwise.

We think the court erred in that ruling, upon that ground. The attack upon the judgment rested upon grounds not apparent of record, which could be shown only by testimony aliunde the record, and could not have been made apparent through writ of error. In such case appellants’ remedy lay not in appeal, which was inadequate, but only in a direct attack upon the judgment. Gutierrez v. Cuellar (Tex. Civ. App.) 236 S. W. 497; Senter v. Garland (Tex. Civ. App.) 298 S. W. 614; Cook v. Panhandle Ref. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 267 S. W. 1070; Lubbock Ind. School Dist. v. Abernathy (Tex. Civ. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 426.

Other questions are raised, but as the error discussed requires reversal, this opinion need not be further prolonged.

• The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
AFS-13-345-E

June 06, 2013

 Exemption No. 10788

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0387

Mr. Mark Bell

Parent of Chloe Bell

3160 Sawgrass Court

Cincinnati, OH 45244

Dear Mr. Bell:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received April 23, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Chloe Bell for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Chloe to exceed the 

specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by 

AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States 

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Chloe.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Chloe Bell exemption from 14 CFR 

§ 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under 

part 121 while Chloe is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from

14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Chloe to exceed the specified 

weight limit for an FAA-approved CRS during use of that CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of 

Chloe’s parents or a caregiver accompanying her. Chloe Bell may only occupy a passenger 

seat with no passenger seated behind her. In addition, Chloe’s parent or caregiver must carry 

a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 

48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form
10-Q for the quarterly  period ended  September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
<CURRENCY>          USD

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  Sep-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                         76,790
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                  40,278
<ALLOWANCES>                    1,535
<INVENTORY>                     7,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              124,764
<PP&E>                         35,896
<DEPRECIATION>                 14,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                261,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          44,866
<BONDS>                       178,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                         (65)
<OTHER-SE>                     38,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  261,970
<SALES>                       237,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              237,006
<CGS>                         218,482
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 218,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              8,433
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (26,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                      110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (26,910)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                 (26,910)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  (2.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (2.97)
        


</TABLE>
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

MATTHEW PAUL MARIN

VERSUS

NO. 2023 CW 0828

FRANCIS W. GUIDRY, JR. AND

FICTITIOUS PARTIES, A,B AND C

OCTOBER 10, 2023

In Re: 

BEFORE: 

Francis W. Guidry, Jr., applying for

writs, 21st Judicial District Court, 

Tangipahoa, No. 210001629. 

McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT

PMc

CHH

SMM

supervisory

Parish of
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                      ROSS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           SUBSIDIARY                                              PLACE OF INCORPORATION
           ------------------------------------------------------  ------------------------------------------------------
<C>        <S>                                                     <C>
       1.  Cardinal Data Corporation                               Massachusetts, USA

       2.  Ross Systems (U.K.) Ltd.                                United Kingdom

       3.  RossData Canada Limited                                 Canada

       4.  Ross Computer Software B.V.                             The Netherlands

       5.  Ross Systems Nederland B.V.                             The Netherlands

       6.  Ross Systems France S.A.                                France

       7.  Ross Systems Europe N.V.                                Belgium

       8.  Pioneer Software, Inc.                                  California, USA

       9.  Ross Systems Deutschland GmbH                           Germany

      10.  Ross Systems Iberica                                    Spain

      11.  Bizware Corporation                                     New Jersey, USA

      12.  Ross Software International PTE, Ltd.                   Singapore

      13.  Ross Software International (HK), Ltd.                  Hong Kong

      14.  Ross Systems Canadian Holdings, Inc.                    Delaware

      15.  Hi Point Systems Corporation                            Ontario, Canada
</TABLE>
(logo) LNR

          Partners, LLC 

 

 

ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 

OF

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President ofLNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), as special servicer underthe applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement, hereby certifies, as of thedate hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as anauthorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity,as follows:

 

1.      A review of the activities performed bythe Special Servicer during theperiodcommencing on January 1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2017 (the"Reporting Period"), and of the Special Servicer's performance underthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision;and

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 ofRegulation AB, the Special Servicerhasfulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and ServicingAgreement in all material respects throughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

 

By:  /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

Dated: February 20, 2018

 

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue · Suite700 · Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 · Fax: (305)695-5601
#### TRUSTEES OF MOTLEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. STECK CO.

No. 13614.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Dec. 2, 1938.

Stone & Wells, of Henderson, and C. H. Machen, Harold E. Wood, and H. C. Chancellor, all of Dallas, for appellant.

Renfro, McCombs & Kilgore and Searcy L. Johnson, all of Dallas, for appellee.

. SPEER, Justice.

This suit was originally instituted in the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas. County, Texas, by The Steck Company, a corporation, hereinafter called appellee, against the “Trustees of Motley Independent School District, a body corporate”, hereinafter called appellant, upon a purported verified account.

Appellant duly and timely filed its plea of privilege to be sued in Rusk County, the place of its domicile. The trial court, upon hearing, overruled the plea, from which judgment the appellant perfected an. appeal to the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals.

Subsequently, and while that appeal was pending, the case was called for trial on its merits. Appellant, still insisting on its plea of privilege and in no way waiving it, answered and the case was tried; judgment was entered for appellee in the amount sued for. From that judgment appellant again appealed to the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals, and by an equalizing order of the Supreme Court, that appeal was transferred to this court for determination.

Under joint motions by the parties, we postponed the submission of this appeal, and passed it to the heel of the docket, awaiting the outcome of the appeal on the plea of privilege. When we reached this submission the Dallas Court had reversed the judgment of the trial court overruling the plea of privilege, and rendered judgment that the plea be sustained, ordering that the case be transferred to Rusk County for trial. See Trustees of Motley Independent School Dist., etc. v. Steck Co., Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 434.

From the disposition made of the appeal on the plea of privilege, as shown by the case cited, it is apparent that the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, was without jurisdiction to try the case upon its merits and render the judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted. Slaughter Co, *322v. Slaughter,-Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 1107; O’Brien et al. v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 459, and cases cited.

For the assigned error in the matter of the trial court assuming jurisdiction to try the case on its merits, and in rendering judgment therein, the cause must be reversed and remanded, to the end that the case may be transferred to Rusk County for trial, in accordance with the order of the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals, as herein-before shown.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions. that the case be transferred to Rusk County for trial, where venue properly lies. Reversed and remanded.
July 1, 2015

Mr. Andrew Deveney

GPS Systems Manager

Skanska USA Civil

1995 Agua Mansa Road

Riverside, CA 92509

Dear Mr. Deveney

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 61.133(a) and (b)

, 91.7(b)

, 91.119

, 91.151(a) and Subpart E (91.401

- 91.417) of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and

what you should do in the next 30 days.

W hy We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 15, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of GPS Systems Manager into

the public docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1207 ), but we are unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does no t compl y with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

furthe r. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
#### In re McCULLOCH. McCULLOCH v. LOFTUS.

No. 7228.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

July 2, 1940.

Chas. R. McBride, of New Albany, Ind., for appellant.

*724Robert C. Billicit and Telford B. Orbison, both of New Albany, Ind., for appellee.

Before SPARKS and KERNER, Circuit' Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This bankruptcy proceeding was previously before us, on other questions, 7 Cir., 100 F.2d 939. We reversed an order of the District Court striking real estate belonging to the debtor from his schedules filed in a proceeding under section 75, Bankr.Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203, on authority of Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance Company, 304 U.S. 502, 58 S.Ct. 1025, 82 L.Ed. 1490, and remanded the cause for further proceedings. We there called attention to the fact that the record did not disclose that any inquiry was made as to whether the debtor in fact was a farmer as defined in section 75, sub. r, of the Bankruptcy Act.

The proceeding is again before us on the debtor’s appeal, and again the debtor did not appear at the hearing in this court, either in person or by attorney. The sole question raised is whether the debtor was a farmer at the time he filed his petition, and subsequently. The District Court found the facts specially and quite fully, and concluded and decreed that the debtor was not a farmer.

The findings are supported not only by material evidence but by a preponderance of all the evidence." The findings are not erroneous and we are not permitted to disturb them. The conclusions of law are correct, the decree properly follows them, and it is affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1461 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to apply the protections of 

the Act to teaching and research assistants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2009 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. GRIJALVA, 

Ms. CLARKE, Mr. HARE, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. ANDREWS, and Ms. 

WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to apply the 

protections of the Act to teaching and research assistants. 

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 ‘‘Teaching and Research 

5 Assistant Collective Bargaining Rights Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION. 

7 Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

8 U.S.C. 152(3)) is amended— 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1461 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(3)(A)’’; 

2 and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(B) The term ‘employee’ includes a student enrolled 

5 at an institution of higher education (as defined in section 

6 101 or 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

7 U.S.C. 1001, 1002), other than an institution of a State 

8 or political subdivision) who is performing work for remu9 neration at the direction of the institution, whether or not 

10 the work relates to the student’s course of study.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS