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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10Q FOR THE YEAR TO
DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                          13,820
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,717
<PP&E>                                          11,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,934
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,313
<SALES>                                         14,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,320
<CGS>                                            7,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,929
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        49
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
#### Peter O. Picot, adm’r of Luke Legget*, v.*Thomas Sanderson,

From Washington.

A divery is essential to a gift. Where the obligee gives the obli-gor an order on.his agent for the delivery of the bond, which was not obeyed — it was held, that the gift being incomplete, might be revolted- — ¡and that resuming the possession and 'bringing suit, was a revocation.

Debt, upon the single bond of the Defendant, payable to the Plaintiff’s intestate. On the trial, before Marxist Judge, the Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following facts. After the bond became due, the Plaintiff’s intestate voluntarily, and without consideration, drew a» order on his agent, in whose, hands the bond was placed for collection, directing him to deliver it up to the Defendant. This direction-was not obeyed by the ..gent, who, upon the obligee’s death, banded it to the Plaintiff, by whom this action was brought.

His Honor, thinking that these facts.formed no harto the action,'judgment was entered up for the Plaintiff — : from which the Defendant appealed.

*1Jevereux,*for tiie Defendant, submitted the case without argument. No Counsel appeared for the Plaintiff.

HenbessoN, Judge.

-The order for the delivery o£„ the bond is clearly not good, as a payment or satisfaction of the debt, it resembles more the gift of the bond *itself;*but this it.cannot be, for want of a delivery, which is essential, to a gift. Without a delivery, the transaction is a mere contract or agreement to give, which, being without consideration, cannot be enforced-If the person on whom the order was drawn, had delivered tiie bond, in pursuance of the order, before it was countermanded, the gift would have been complete.— *310But the owner, or bis representative, might countermand it. which was done in the present case.

The only authority I have seen, which in any measure supports a gift without delivery, is taken from *Brooke’s Abridg. (Trespass, pl.*303) there it is said, if A, in London, the owner of goods which are in York, give them to B, and before B has obtained the actual possession, a stranger take them, B may maintain trespass for them. If this be law, it is on the ground, that the action is brought against a stranger, without any revocation on the part of the donor.

The executor, by resuming the actual possession, and bringing the present action, has clearly revoked the gift-» *(Withers*v. *Lys,*3 *Ser. Low.*9.)

Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                      ADVANCED LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  EXHIBIT 12 -- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (In thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                  ---------------------------------------
                                                                       1998                    1997
                                                                  ---------------          --------------

<S>                                                                    <C>                       <C>    
Consolidated pretax income from continuing operations                  $ (29,734)                $ 9,095
Interest expense                                                           6,158                     327
Interest portion of rent expense                                             303                     328
                                                                  ---------------          --------------

     EARNINGS                                                          $ (23,273)                $ 9,750
                                                                  ===============          ==============


Interest expense                                                         $ 6,158                   $ 327
Interest capitalized                                                         458                     416
Interest portion of rent expense                                             303                     328
                                                                  ---------------          --------------

     FIXED CHARGES                                                       $ 6,919                 $ 1,071
                                                                  ===============          ==============


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                             -                       9.1
                                                                  ===============          ==============
</TABLE>




For purposes of calculating the unaudited ratio of earnings to fixed charges,
earnings consist of income (loss) from continuing operations before provision
for income taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest charges
and amortization of debt issuance costs, whether expensed or capitalized, and
that portion of rental expense that is representative of interest. In the six
months ended December 31, 1998, earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charge
requirements by $30,192.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1807

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION; UNKNOWN AGENTS, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-01734-CCB) 

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district 

court’s order denying relief on his civil action. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilder v. Toyota 

Motor Credit Corp., No. 1:09-cv-01734-CCB (D. Md. July 8, 2009). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Commander Lists 5 Tasks to Ensuring Continued Space Superiority

DOD NEWS

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
NO. 07-11-0267-CR 

 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 AT AMARILLO 

 PANEL B 

 AUGUST 4, 2011 

 ______________________________ 

 ROSHELLE RENE HOUSER a/k/a 

ROSHELL RENEA JONES, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

_______________________________ 

 FROM THE 264th DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY; 

 NO. 66,191; HON. MARTHA J. TRUDO, PRESIDING 

 _______________________________ 

 

ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 _______________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Roshelle Rene Houser a/k/a Roshell Renea Jones, appellant, appeals her 

conviction for forgery by passing. Appellant timely perfected her appeal. The clerk’s 

record was filed on June 14, 2011, and no reporter’s record was taken. Appellant’s brief 

was due on July 14, 2011. The brief was not filed by that date and on July 22, 2011, the 

court notified counsel that he had until August 1, 2011, to either file appellant’s brief or 

file an extension motion. To date, neither a brief nor an extension motion have been 

received by the court. 
2

Those convicted of criminal acts are entitled to effective assistance of counsel on 

appeal. The failure of counsel to timely prosecute an appeal falls short of rendering 

such assistance. Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 46th 

District Court of Bell County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial 

court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a 

hearing to determine 1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, 2) whether 

appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel, and 3) whether appellant’s 

current attorney was appointed or retained. The trial court is ordered to execute 

pertinent findings of fact on these matters. Should it be found that appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal, is indigent, and her current legal counsel was appointed, then the 

trial court is ordered to remove appellant’s current legal counsel and appoint another to 

zealously represent appellant’s interest on appeal. The name, address, phone number, 

telefax number, and state bar number of the new attorney must also be included in the 

court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Lastly, the trial court shall also cause to 

be developed 1) a supplemental clerk's record containing the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law and 2) a reporter's record transcribing the evidence and argument 

presented at the aforementioned hearing. The foregoing supplemental clerk's and 

reporter’s records must be filed by the trial court with the clerk of this court on or before 

September 2, 2011. Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial 

court may request same on or before September 2, 2011. 

It is so ordered. 

 Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
THERMACELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         Computation of Loss Per Common Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          For the Three Months Ended
                                                                 December 31,
                                                       ---------------------------------
                                                            1999              1998
                                                       ---------------   ---------------
                                                         (unaudited)      (unaudited)

<S>                                                 <C>               <C>
Shares  outstanding:                                        9,883,653         7,206,325
Weighted average shares outstanding                         9,511,153         5,730,568
Net loss                                             $       (922,059) $       (222,078)
                                                       ---------------   ---------------

Net loss per common share                            $          (0.10)            (0.04)
                                                       ===============   ===============
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1209 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1209

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 901 N. Francisco Avenue, Mission, Texas, as the ``Mission Veterans 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MISSION VETERANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 901 N. Francisco Avenue, Mission, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mission Veterans Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mission 
Veterans Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
No. 86-5941.

#### Mitchell *v.*Oregon.

Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7776** 

MICHAEL GLEASON , Petitioner

- Appellant , v. GEORGE JANICE, Warden, Stevens Correctional Center , Respondent

– Appellee, and HONORABLE DARRELL V. MCGRAW, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. Gina M. Groh , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00061

- GMG

- JES )

Submitted : January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas Gregory Dyer, DYER LAW OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia; David J. Joffe, JOFFE LAW, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant. Laura Young, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Gleason seek s to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabilit y. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sa tisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 5 29 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gleason has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit Marines Have Shocking Experience  

By  Lance Cpl. Jacob Pruitt 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
**Exhibit
        13.2**
  **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  In
        connection with the Annual Report of Prana Biotechnology Limited (the “Company”)
        on Form 20-F for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Revelins,
        Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
        as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
   /s/Richard
        Revelins *
 Richard
        Revelins
 Chief
        Financial Officer
  December
        21, 2005
   *  The
        originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
        Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon
        request.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 1297 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2012 - SW - 100 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. Yes 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**