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 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, AND
THE SUMMARY OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
TO WHICH THIS EXHIBIT IS ATTACHED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 305,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    8,100
<INVENTORY>                                   425,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              729,000
<PP&E>                                        543,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                258,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,177,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         346,000
<BONDS>                                       257,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       39,300
<OTHER-SE>                                    388,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,177,300
<SALES>                                     2,789,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,789,400
<CGS>                                       2,474,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,474,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             32,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               105,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                   42,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            62,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   62,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.60


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                           5,596,538
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       58,918
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18,225
<INVENTORY>                                            972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,827,317
<PP&E>                                           1,626,367
<DEPRECIATION>                                     405,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,116,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,398,756 <F1>
<BONDS>                                            850,790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               56,058
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,116,724
<SALES>                                             39,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   147,830
<CGS>                                               35,191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      489,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,194,547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,514,882)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,536,704)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,514,882)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.27)
<FN>
<F1> Due to the results of an investigation, the company eliminated $800,000 of
software revenue since it was determined that it had never delivered the
software even though it received $791,750 from two purported sublicensees for
said software.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT

LOCAL DISCHARGE LIMITS* 

Effective 9/1/07 

Pollutant Discharge 

Limitation** 

Limit Applies To: 

Antimony (Sb) 5.0 All Industrial Users 

(IUs) 

Arsenic (As) 0.8 All IUs 

Cadmium (Cd) 0.3 All IUs 

Chromium (Cr(T)) 1.5 All IUs 

Copper (Cu) 0.9 Permitted IUs 

0.04 Unpermitted IUs 

Lead (Pb) 0.4 Permitted IUs 

0.001 Unpermitted IUs 

Mercury (Hg) 0.003 Permitted IUs 

0.0001 Unpermitted IUs 

Nickel (Ni) 3.0 All IUs 

Selenium (Se) 0.3 All IUs 

Silver (Ag) 1.0 All IUs 

Zinc (Zn) 4.5 All IUs 

Cyanide (CN) 0.5 Permitted IUs 

 Prohibition Unpermitted IUs 

Phenol 10.0 All IUs 

pH (Instantaneous limits) 5.5 – 11.5 units All IUs 

Oil & Grease - Mineral 100 All IUs 

Oil & Grease - Animal & Vegetable 300 All IUs 

Total Toxic Organics (TTO) (see separate list) 2.10 All IUs 

Special Limitations for Groundwater Remediation Projects*:

Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene & Xylene (BTEX) 1.0 

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 10.0 

* More stringent limits may apply for industries subject to National Categorical Pretreatment Standards. 

** Expressed in mg/L unless otherwise noted. Limits are daily maximum limits unless otherwise specified.

Pollutant Parameters with Alternative Control Strategies 

Pollutant Control Strategy 

Chlorpyrifos Best Management Practices

Diazinon Best Management Practices

Dieldrin Discharge Prohibition

Dioxin compounds Discharge Prohibition

4,4’-DDE Discharge Prohibition

PCBs Discharge Prohibition

Perchloroethylene (PCE) from dry cleaning Discharge Prohibition

Tributyltin Discharge Prohibition

The following parameters are established in General Discharge Prohibitions of Title 10: 

Radioactivity Refer to 10CFR20.2003 

Closed-Cup Flashpoint (test method 40CFR Part 261.21) 140°F (60°C) 

Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) 

 2 successive readings 

 single reading 

5% 

10% 

Temperature 150°F (65°C)
#### Clark and another, Respondents, vs. Hill and others, Commissioners of Agriculture and Markets, Appellants.

*May 31*

June *20, 1932.*

*576For the appellants there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *R. M. Orchard,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Orchard.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Jeffris, Mouat, Oestreich, Wood & Cunningham*of Janesville, and oral argument by *Otto A. Oestreich.*

Owen, J.

The petitioners are the proprietors of a show or entertainment popularly known as a carnival, consisting of seven distinct acts or performances, such as a shooting gallery, a circus side-show, a motordrome, two fun houses, a Ferris wheel, a merry-go-round, etc. On the 16th day of July, 1931, they applied to the defendants as Commissioners of the Department of Agriculture and Markets of the state of Wisconsin, under the provisions of sec. 129.14, Stats., for a showman’s license and tendered therefor the sum of $20. The license was refused because the commissioners construed sec. 129.14 as requiring a license fee of $20 for each act or performance constituting the carnival unit.

This action was instituted by the petitioners to procure a peremptory writ of *mandamus*compelling the defendant *577commissioners to issue to them, a license upon the payment of $20. A trial of the issue resulted in a judgment in all respects favorable to the defendants, quashing the alternative writ and denying the peremptory writ. From this judgment, in all respects in their favor, the defendants bring this appeal. They do not challenge the correctness of the judgment, but they challenge the construction accorded to sec. 129.14 by the trial court. In other words, respondents challenge the reason upon which the judgment is based rather than the judgment itself.

In view of the fact that the judgment denied the petitioners the relief sought, or any relief, it is not a judgment by which the defendants are aggrieved. The right to appeal to this court is accorded to any *party aggrieved*by the provisions of sec. 274.10, Stats. Unless the party is aggrieved by the judgment, even though he challenges the reason upon which the judgment is based, he has no right to appeal. *Bragg v. Blewett,*99 Wis. 348, 74 N. W. 807; *Ellis v. Barron County,*120 Wis. 390, 98 N. W. 232; *Lessig v. Lessig,*136 Wis. 403, 117 N. W. 792. As the defendants here are not parties who may appeal from the judgment, because they are not aggrieved, the judgment of this court must be a dismissal of the appeal.

Although the respondents filed a notice of review under the provisions of sec. 274.12, Stats., that does not operate to give the court jurisdiction. That provision of the statutes is a privilege extended to the respondent where this court has acquired jurisdiction. It does not operate to give the court jurisdiction. *Wisconsin Creameries, Inc. v. Johnson,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 444, 243 N. W. 498). In view of the fact that the court has no jurisdiction of the case, the judgment must be a dismissal of the appeal.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of Headwaters Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"),
we, Kirk A. Benson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven G.
Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (i)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Kirk A. Benson
---------------------------
Kirk A. Benson
Chief Executive Officer
August 10, 2004

/s/ Steven G. Stewart
---------------------------
Steven G. Stewart
Chief Financial Officer
August 10, 2004
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 11.1                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

Shares outstanding at 12/31/95                                   1,868,000
Debenture convertible to common stock                            1,225,000
Preferred stock convertible to common stock                        250,000
Stock options                                                      146,000


       Total                                                     3,489,000

    Days outstanding for 3 months ending                                  
       September 30, 1996                                               66
    Days outstanding for 9 months ending
       September 30, 1996                                              248

Initial Public Offering                                          1,365,000

    Days outstanding for 3 months ending                                  
       September 30, 1996                                               26
    Days outstanding for 9 months ending
       September 30, 1996                                               26

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
    3 months ending                                              3,874,761
    9 months ending                                              3,618,526

Earnings per Share - primary and fully diluted
    3 months ending                                            $   (0.152)
    9 months ending                                            $   (0.348)
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 06-0544 

IN RE PETITION OF TONYA DEE BUMBARGER 

FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN 

THE BAR OF MONTANA 

FILED 

AUG 13 2024 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montane 

ORDER 

Tonya Dee Bumbarger has petitioned for reinstatement to active status in the State 

Bar of Montana. The petition states that on July 2, 2024, Bumbarger was placed on inactive 

status by the State Bar of Montana pursuant to Rules 3B2, 5, and 12 of the Rules for 

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for noncompliance with CLE requirements. Rule 14 

governs reinstatement of members transferred to inactive status for failure to comply with 

CLE requirements, and provides: 

The Court may reinstate the member upon payment of all fees 

required by the Commission and certification by the Commission that the 

member has completed the minimum CLE requirements. . . . The 

Commission may consider hours of approved CLE that the member has 

completed within 24 months prior to the application for reinstatement. 

Thus, Bumbarger must submit "certification by the [CLE] Commission" that she 

has completed 30 hours of CLE approved by the Commission before the Court can order 

reinstatement to active status. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Tonya Dee Bumbarger for reinstatement to 

active status in the State Bar of Montana is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to the Petitioner and the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this .1-• day of August, 2024. 

08/13/2024

Case Number: PR 06-0544
t\Q 

,,,..0 J' 4 • - - 

(°4 Isl!bs•it—,—
#### Bankers Farm Mortgage Company, Plaintiff: Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Duffy, Duffy & Hanson*of Fond du Lac.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *John E. Martin,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

For the respondent Willard Moriarity: *Clifford C. Mul-larkey*of Clintonville.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6406

EMILIO ROBERTO FERNANDEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RODERICK R. SOWERS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06- cv-00520-JFM) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 16, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emilio Roberto Fernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Emilio Roberto Fernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fernandez 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# L_2015306EN.01000101.xml

| 24.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 306/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/2110

of 12 November 2015

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Mojama de Barbate (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain's application to register the name ‘Mojama de Barbate’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain's application to register the name ‘Mojama de Barbate’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Mojama de Barbate’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Mojama de Barbate’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Mojama de Barbate’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. — Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 November 2015.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 223, 8.7.2015, p. 10.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
# C_2004118EN.01004502.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/45

---

Action brought on 24 March 2004 by Wieland-Werke Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-116/04)

(2004/C 118/99)

Language of the Case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 March 2004 by Wieland-Werke Aktiengesellschaft, Ulm (Germany), represented by R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.240 – Industrial Pipes; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.240 – Industrial Pipes;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in the decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission found that the applicant and five other undertakings had, by their participation in a series of agreements and concerted practices in the form of price-fixing and market sharing in the industrial pipe sector, infringed Article 81(1) EC and, as from 1 January 1994, Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Commission fined the relevant undertakings.

The applicant argues that the Commission did not take into account proportionally the size of the undertakings concerned in fixing the fine. The fine imposed on the applicant was disproportionately high relative to its total turnover. That constitutes an infringement of the principle of proportionality and contravenes the Commission's own guidelines. Furthermore, that method places small and medium-sized undertakings at a disadvantage and therefore infringes the general principle of equality and the principle of imposing penalties on a case-by-case basis.

The applicant further argues that in setting the fine sufficient account was not taken of the economic significance of the infringement as the Commission did not correctly calculate market volumes. Furthermore, the increase of 10 % per year set by the Commission based on the duration of the infringement was not properly reasoned.

The applicant also argues that the Commission's method for setting fines does not satisfy the requirement of certainty necessary for the rule of law. In particular, the calculation of the basic amount, which is made entirely without reference to the individual economic circumstances of the undertaking concerned, and the economic significance of the infringement does not allow for any practical unlimited discretion on the part of the Commission. Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 is not compatible with the requirement of certainty and thus superior Community law. Finally, the Commission, in applying the leniency notice of 1996, disadvantaged the applicant without any discernible reason relative to other undertakings.

---
Opinion issued September 16, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00115-CV

———————————

LATONIA ROBERSON, Appellant

V.

NIZINSKI FAMILY WATERS LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1141359

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Latonia Roberson, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX.R. APP.

P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to 

file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant 

did not respond. See TEX.R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file 

a brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss.