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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 29, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002531
<NAME> TOLLGRADE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                       6,495,380
<SECURITIES>                                11,399,362
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,616,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,147,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,189,020
<PP&E>                                       4,568,387
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,703,717)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,225,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,741,061
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,131,859
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,183,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,225,232
<SALES>                                      8,619,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,619,406
<CGS>                                        3,789,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,789,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,889,298
<INCOME-TAX>                                   710,005
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,179,293
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
No. 85-6645.

#### Grandison *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Griffith*v. *Kentucky, ante,*p. 314.
No. 90-6123.

#### Lanam *v.*Minnesota.

Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.
No. 86-1108.

#### Vermont *v.*Cox.

Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari granted.
No. 90-6178.

#### Nitcher *v.*Cline et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; BRAIN Initiative K99/R00 Application Review.                    

*Date:*                         December 13, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                              ( print page 94752)    

*Contact Person:*                         Nicholas Gaiano, Ph.D., Review Branch Chief, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-2742,                         *email: nick.gaiano@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: November 22, 2024.

Bruce A. George, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-27915 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
No. 91-5093.

#### Reed *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# ANZAC Day: Our Commitment Runs Deep

By Dave WernerU.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs

*Retired Capt. Dave Werner’s 24-year Navy career began as a surface warfare officer before becoming a Navy public affairs officer. He retired from the U.S. Navy in 2012 and now works on the staff of the U.S. Pacific Fleet public affairs office.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# Note to Editors: NRC Officials Available at Meeting in Waterford

----

----

I-97-125

September 18, 1997

**NOTE TO EDITORS:**

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will be available prior to tonight's Nuclear Energy Advisory Council meeting in Waterford, Connecticut, to answer media questions regarding potential contamination problems at the Haddam Neck nuclear power plant. Both Millstone, located in Waterford, and Haddam Neck, in Haddam, are owned and operated by Northeast Utilities.

NRC Region I Deputy Regional Administrator William L. Axelson will be among the agency officials available at 6 p.m. at Waterford Town Hall. At 7 p.m., NEAC will hold one in a series of regular meetings to discuss the status of recovery efforts at the Millstone nuclear power plant. Mr. Axelson and the other NRC officials will be attending that session, which is open to the public.

The NEAC, whose members were appointed by the state Legislature, was established to, among other things, keep state officials and citizens apprised of safety issues relating to nuclear power plants in Connecticut.

On Tuesday, Connecticut's Governor and Attorney General held a press conference to discuss a filing by the state Department of Public Utility Control with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In the filing, a consultant hired by the DPUC stated that he had found evidence of contamination at Haddam Neck, which was permanently shutdown last December. FERC is considering testimony as it tries to determine how much money ratepayers should have to pay for Haddam Neck's decommissioning costs.

Waterford Town Hall is located on Rope Ferry Road.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### In re FUEGO HEATING SYSTEMS, INC., Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. BK-78-61 ND.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine.

Jan. 26, 1982.

*562. Christopher Limberis, Bangor, Me., Trustee.

Richard E. Poulos, Portland, Me., for trustee.

Gary Growe, Bangor, Me., for debtor.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FREDERICK A. JOHNSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

Counsel for the Debtor filed an application for attorney’s fees and disbursements in the amount of $836.87. This amount would augment an initial $500 retainer. A portion of the thirty-one hours expended by counsel was for services rendered after the Chapter XI debtor was adjudicated a bankrupt.1 Counsel’s hourly rate of $40 is certainly reasonable.

The trustee objects to the fees sought, claiming that any fees in excess of the $500 retainer should be disallowed because they did not benefit the estate, were a duplication of services rendered by other attorneys and that any services performed after adjudication were not authorized by the court.

Compensible administrative expenses must be actual and necessary. *Rose Pass Mines, Inc. v. Howard,*615 F.2d 1088, 1090 (5th Cir. 1980); *In re Dole,*244 F.Supp. 751, 754 (D.Me.1965); Bankruptcy Act § 62(a)(1). The amount of compensation must be .fair and reasonable, *In re Dole, supra,*thereby necessitating a review of all applications. *See Watkins v. Sedberry,*261 U.S. 571, 43 S.Ct. 411, 67 L.Ed. 802 (1923). In reviewing counsel’s application for fees the bankruptcy court must protect the creditor’s interest in the debtor’s property, *see Realty Associates Securities Corp. v. O’Connor,*295 U.S. 295, 299, 55 S.Ct. 663, 664-65, 79 L.Ed. 1446 (1935), while treating counsel with fairness, *see Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Brock,*405 F.2d 429, 432-33 (5th Cir. 1968).

The documentation accompanying Mr. Growe’s application does not contain a sufficient description of the nature, purpose and affect of the services provided. *See In re York International Building, Inc.,*527 F.2d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 1975); *Inre J & S, Inc.,*19 C.B.C. 822 (D.Vt.1979). Absent this information the court may proceed to determine the fees allowable based on information available. *In re Hamilton Distributors, Inc.,*440 F.2d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 1971).

A review of counsel’s application indicates that of the 21 hours provided the debtor-in-possession, 3 hours expended for unidentified “research” is not compensible. Of the ten hours provided the debtor after adjudication 6Vi hours were appropriately the function of debtor’s counsel and *3%*hours should have been performed by the trustee or are too vague to make a judgment in favor of counsel.

The preparation of a final report is required by the debtor-in-possession by Bankruptcy Rule 122(7) and is compensible. The preparation of amended schedules of affairs and consultation with the trustee are reasonably expected to be performed by debt- or’s counsel. However, negotiations pertaining to state taxes and securities are clearly a function of the trustee.

Debtor’s counsel is allowed fees in the amount of $470 plus expenses of $96.87.

An appropriate order will be entered.

1

. This case was commenced under the old Bankruptcy Act.
Exhibit 12.2
    
   1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Prana Biotechnology Limited;
  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 
   /s/ Kathryn Andrews*

Kathryn Andrews

Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 30, 2012 

t0123 

Order 

 

January 30, 2012 

143884 

IN RE ESTATE OF NORMAN HOWERY SC: 143884 

 COA: 304473 

Oakland PC: 1999-269391-DA 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Prokopovitz, Appellant, vs. Carl Manthey & Sons Company, Respondent.

*September 18*

October *16, 1923.*

*New trial: Time within which order may be• made: Extension: Order of court.*

Where the sixty days limited for a decision on a motion for a new trial by sec. 2878, Stats., has expired, and no order was granted extending the time, the trial court has no jurisdic- • tion to grant a new trial. (In this case the motion for a new trial should have been denied on the merits.)

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Brown county: Henry Graass, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

*Sol. P. Huntington*of Green Bay, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Cady, Strehlow & Kaftan*of Green Bay, and oral argument by *Robert A. Kaftan.*

Owen, J.

This action was brought to recover a commission for the sale of a cemetery monument. The trial was begun April 19, 1922, resulting in a special verdict favor*402able to the plaintiff. Plaintiff'moved for judgment on the verdict. The defendant made several alternative motions, upon the minutes of the judge, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for changes in the special verdict, and, finally, if all previous motions be denied, for a new trial, because the special verdict as submitted did not properly include the issues. This motion was filed May 1, 1922. On November 13, 1922, the trial judge filed an opinion in which he reached the conclusion that the defendant was entitled to a new trial, and on January 5, 1923, an order granting a new trial was signed by the trial judge, which order was filed with the clerk January 8, 1923. The plaintiff appeals from the order granting a new trial and urges its reversal on the ground that the trial court was without jurisdiction to order a new trial.

Sec. 2878, Stats., requires that a motion for a new trial based on the minutes of the judge must be made and heard within sixty days after the verdict is rendered unless the court by order shall extend such time for cause. If the motion be not decided within the sixty days or within such time as the court shall have fixed in such extension, then such motion shall be taken as overruled and an exception to such constructive denial of the same shall be allowed in the bill of exceptions.

In this case no order extending the time beyond the period of sixty days after the verdict is disclosed in the record and, in fact, it is not pretended that such an order was made. ’The- court made no decision of the motion until November 13, 1922, *long*after the sixty-day period had expired, and under the plain provisions of sec. 2878 the court had no jurisdiction to grant a new trial. *Ward v. Smith,*166 Wis. 342, 165 N. W. 299; *Notbohm v. Pallange,*168 Wis. 225, 169 N. W. 557; *Bankers Finance Corp. v. Christensen, ante,*p. 398, 195 N. W. 319, decided herewith.

For this reason, and for the further reason that an exam*403ination of the record convinces us that the motion for a new trial should have been denied on its merits, the order must be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff upon the special verdict.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.
No: IV-19-006 March 8, 2019

Contact: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC Proposes $14,500 Fine to Team Industrial Service, Inc.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a $14,500 fine to Team Industrial Service, 

Inc., of Alvin, Texas, for failing to lock a radiography device before bringing it aboard a U.S. Navy 

vessel to examine pipe welds.

The NRC considers the violation significant because a safety barrier was not in place while the 

device was being hand-carried aboard a U.S. Navy ship, which could have resulted in an inadvertent 

exposure. NRC investigators concluded the violation was willful, as described in a Jan. 4, 2019, 

inspection report.

Company officials responded to the NRC’s preliminary finding in a letter dated Feb. 6, 2019. 

The company has 30 days to dispute the fine or request involvement of a neutral third-party mediator to 

resolve the issue.
No. 90-6164.

#### McPeak *v.*Reynolds, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Svacina, Appellant, vs. Greenzweig and others, Respondents.

*February 4*

March 5, *1929.*

*June 5*

June *24, 1929.*

*Joseph J. O’Day,*attorney, and *A. W. Schulz,*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

*Michael Levin*of Milwaukee, for the respondents Phillip-son.

Stevens, J.

When this case was called for argument the appellant did not appear. Upon it appearing that the case involved questions of fact and that no bill of exceptions had been settled, the judgment appealed from was affirmed from the bench. The record transmitted from the trial court contains what is in form a bill of exceptions which was never signed or settled by the trial judge.

Upon motion for rehearing it appeared that the appellant relied upon the opening sentence in *Estate of Gabrick,*191 Wis. 453, 454, 211 N. W. 128, where it is said: “A proposed bill of exceptions was served, but no bill of exceptions seems *367to have been settled.” In that case a bill of exceptions was prepared and served. The cases and briefs on file do not disclose the fact that the bill was regularly settled by the trial court, but counsel for both parties in their briefs did not raise the question that the bill of exceptions had not been duly settled. The case was treated by them as if such bill of exceptions was properly before this court. The sole question presented and considered in that case was whether this court could review the findings of the trial court without exceptions being taken thereto. There was no intent to abrogate by that decision the long-established rule that questions of fact will not be reviewed by this court on appeal or writ of error unless the evidence is brought to this court by means of a bill of exceptions settled by the trial judge in the manner prescribed by law.

. In view of the fact that it is apparent that appellant was misled by the statement contained in that opinion, and in order that appellant may have his day in court, the judgment of this court entered February 4, 1929, is vacated, and the record will be remanded to the trial court forthwith to enable appellant to move that court to settle a bill of exceptions, if the trial court still has that power, in accordance with the practice adopted in *Allerding v. Cross,*15 Wis. 530, 532. The appellant to pay $10 costs of motion and the fees of the clerk of this court.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.

The cause was reargued June 5, 1929.

On June 24, 1929, the judgment of the circuit court appealed from was affirmed without opinion.