alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEPT-30-1996
<CASH>                                             716
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   716
<PP&E>                                           6,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,640
<BONDS>                                         41,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,560
<OTHER-SE>                                   (122,861)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,011
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,646)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,646)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This  schedule   contains  summary   information   extracted  from  the
         Consolidated   Balance   Sheet  as  of  September   27,  1998  and  the
         Consolidated   Statement  of  Operations  for  the  fiscal  year  ended
         September  27, 1998 and is  qualified  in its  entirety by reference to
         such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          890096                        
<NAME>                                         Uniroyal Technology Corporation 
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000                           
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Sep-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-27-1998
<CASH>                                           5,585
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (246)
<INVENTORY>                                     38,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,889
<PP&E>                                         111,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (40,084)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,743
<BONDS>                                         97,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,351
<SALES>                                        220,616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221,128
<CGS>                                          160,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    87
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,634
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,607
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (5,637)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,390
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 28, 2019

No. 04-18-00861-CR & 04-18-00862-CR

Juan ORTIZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR7171, 2018CR0457

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 On October 24, 2019, appellee filed its brief in this appeal. Appellee’s brief violates 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.10 in that the brief includes sensitive data, specifically the 

name of a person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed, and such data has not 

been redacted to protect the minor’s identity. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10. 

We therefore ORDER that appellee’s brief is STRICKEN. We further ORDER

appellee to file an amended brief in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.10 by

or before October 30, 2019.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of October, 2019.

___________________________________

LUZ ESTRADA,

Chief Deputy Clerk
Before After

Zone Lead Time Wall HE Wall HE Wall HE HE HE

AECO Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

BGE Long 13:22 14 15:22 16 17:23 18 12,13 20,21

BGE Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

DPL Long 13:38 14 15:38 16 17:29 18 12,13 20,21

DPL Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

JCPL Long 13:22 14 15:22 16 17:23 18 12,13 20,21

JCPL Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

METED Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

PECO Long 13:22 14 15:22 16 17:23 18 12,13 20,21

PECO Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

PENELEC Long 13:22 14 15:22 16 17:23 18 12,13 20,21

PEPCO Long 13:22 14 15:22 16 17:23 18 12,13 20,21

PEPCO Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

PPL Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

PSEG Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

RECO Short 14:28 15 15:28 16 17:34 18 13,14 20,21

Notes:

1) Wall is the time as it would appear on a clock on a wall

2) HE is time in Hour Ending format

3) Capacity Compliance Hours are the hours for which compliance will be measured

4) Same Day CBL hours: loads for these four (4) hours should be averaged if using the Same Day CBL method for compliance

5) All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)

HE

Capacity Compliance 

Hours Same Day CBL hours

Notice Time

July 18, 2012 Load Management (DR) Event Key Times and Hours

Start Time

Implement Conclude

End Time

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

17
NO. SCPW-12-0000799
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. TED SAKAI, INTERIM DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI # I; SHARI KIMOTO; and JEANETTE BALTERO, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J .

w i t h A c o b a , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s motion for reconsideration of the October 9, 2012 order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, which was electronically filed by the appellate clerk on November 2, 2012,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 14, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000799 14-NOV-2012 08:07 AMDISSENT BY ACOBA, J. I dissent and would grant the motion for reconsideration because HRS § 353H-7 evinces a mandatory request. /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

2
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF  THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I,
M. David Kornblatt, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Triumph Group, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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:



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 functions):



Dated:
May 14, 2010

/s/ M. DAVID KORNBLATTM. David Kornblatt Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren
P. Levy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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 position and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Warren P. Levy     
|Warren P. Levy         
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2006       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene
Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**718 CA 12-02400**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

ALICIA M. FLATTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
VIRGINIA D. RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

LIPPES & LIPPES, BUFFALO (RICHARD J. LIPPES OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK, LLP, BUFFALO (THOMAS A. DIGATI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Shirley Troutman, J.), entered February 27, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant Virginia D. Rodriguez for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Universal Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Filton, Senior Vice President and 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, and to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company at the end of, and for the period covered by, the Report.



/s/ Steve FiltonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 7, 2010


A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Universal Health Services, Inc. and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
REF ID:A66455 

TOP. SECRET e U.S. Bffl £1AL EYES ONLV e 

Extract from: Armed Forces Security Aieney, Russian Signal Intelligence 

dated 15 February 1952, ~ SEe~, copy- No. 26, 

pp. 50-51. 

American Communications Intelligence may still larcely be in its 

infanc7. This fact can easil7 be explained if one considers the great 

distance between America and the other powers. In addition to this is 

the fact that any kind of evalua ti.on is extremely .foreign to the American 

mentality, and in every military event up to now it has stumbled over 

its own determinations (certainly, prior to the occasion of Pearl Harbor 

as well as to the occasion of the start of the North Korean attack, an 

intelligence report should have been at hand concerning them. In both 

instances the reports were incorrectJ..y heeded much less neva1uated" 

correctly factually). Also the report recently released by an Austrian 

newspaper, that the wife or Fried.man, Chief of American Decipherment 

Service, is al.so an especially capabl.e expert in the field or secret 

inks just about fits in the picture of a decipherment activity romantical.ly involved in i tsel.f and little moulded to the purpose of conducting 

a war. 

Therefore, American Communic ati.ons Intelligence in particular, 

and probably to a considerable extent al.so the English might be counted 

/J.s belonii~ to that type of real. peacetime communications intelligence • 

• 

TOP. SECRET 

eclassifi ed and approved for release by NSA 

n 05-12-2014 ursuantto E.O. 13526 

-U.S. 8FFl£iAl E~E3 6lttt
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CANDACE S. WALTERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE 

MANAGEMENT LONG TERM 

DISABILITY PLAN and ODYSSEY 

HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LONG 

TERM DISABILITY PLAN 

ADMINISTRATOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16930

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00150-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 14, 2016

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit 

Judges.

Candace Walters appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment to Odyssey Healthcare Management, denying her cross-motion, and 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

NOV 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

denying her motion to remand the matter to the plan administrator for further

factual inquiry. We affirm.

An order granting summary judgment on cross-motions is reviewed de novo. 

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th 

Cir. 2008). Summary judgment may be affirmed for any reason supported by the 

record. Id. 

We may assume without deciding that the district court incorrectly 

disregarded Walters’ affidavit, which described her memory of submitting a claim 

for long-term disability benefits. Had the district court considered that affidavit, 

Odyssey would nonetheless be entitled to summary judgment. Under the 

undisputed provisions of the long-term disability plan, a participant who believes 

her claim was wrongly rejected must pursue an internal administrative appeal 

within 180 days. Likewise, federal law requires a claimant to “avail himself or 

herself of a plan’s own internal review procedures before bringing suit in federal 

court.” Diaz v. United Agric. Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust, 50 F.3d 1478, 

1483 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Amato v. Bernard, 618 F.2d 559, 566–68 (9th Cir. 

1980)). Walters offered no evidence that she pursued an internal review of 

Odyssey’s decision. She therefore cannot proceed with a federal lawsuit, see id., 
3 

and there is no need to remand the matter to the plan administrator for further 

factual development. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Edge
Petroleum Corporation
Houston, Texas

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-143474) and Form S-8
(No. 333-141254, No. 333-113619, No. 333-106484, No. 333-61890, No. 333-93209, and
No. 333-22571) of Edge Petroleum Corporation (the "Company") of our reports dated March 12, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and to the effectiveness
of the Company's internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

|/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLPBDO SEIDMAN, LLP |  | 
|------------------------------------ |  | 
|Houston, Texas
March 12, 2008        |  | 

---



QuickLinks
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mniteb $)tates <!ourt of ~peaIs

for tbe jfeberaI qcircuit

RICHARD E. DAHLBERG AND HEATHER H.

DAHLBERG,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

2012-5081

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal

Claims in case no. 01-CV-720, Judge Susan G. Braden.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellants' unopposed motion for leave to file its response out of time,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

Case: 12-5081 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/27/2012
RICHARD DAHLBERG v. US

s19

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

2

Case: 12-5081 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/27/2012
------------- ~~ --- -- -------------------- REF ID: A72245.~ 

ASA Bulletin #,2, Security Violstion 

Thi• i11 t.o oert1.t)" that. .ASA lblletin lo. 521 dated 29 October 1?48, 

aubject: Security V'iol!.tion, ns red. to all i:oeraonnel in .&S•l) and AS-l,. 

~U Rll0.1..DS 

l•11stant Chief 

Ccaaunicationa Research ~eotion 

@'pp roved for Release bv NSA on 09-24-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3 

f-
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 15

- 2106

_____________ In re: IRENE H. LIN,

Debtor

JAY J. LIN; JAY J. LIN PA,

Appellants

v.
STEVEN R. NUE NER; BARRY SHARER; KEISHA ADKINS; NEUNER AND VENTURA LLP; SHARER PETREE BROTZ & SNYDER;

JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; XYX CO.

_____________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civil No. 3

- 14

- cv - 05230 ) District Judge: H onorable Freda L. Wolfson

____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 6 , 2016

____________ Before: FISHER, RENDELL and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 28, 2016 )2 ________ ____ OPINION *

____________
BARRY, Circuit Judge Jay J. Lin and his law firm, Jay J. Lin, P.A. , appeal the order of the District Court that dismissed, as untimely, two appeal s to it from the Bankruptcy Court, and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s award of $5,000 in fees and expenses as a sanction a gainst Mr. Lin. We have jurisdiction over the final order of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. Appellants’ “main” brief to us is confusing and, in places, incomprehensible. One section, however, is clear: the “Statement of the Case”, which fills almost half of that
eleven

- page brief, with insults of the worst kind hurled at the Trustee Appellee and the
Trustee ’ s Counsel , also an appellee . Vitriol aside, the Statement of the Case certainly appears to have nothing to do with whatever issues Appellan ts may have been trying, but utterly failed , to raise, much less to explain. The two

- page reply brief does not add a thing. That having been said, we understand, albeit from Appellees’ briefs, the issues supposedly presented by Appellants for review ─ Ap pellees , after all, have lived through
those issues before both the Bankruptcy and District Courts in this lengthy, convoluted ,

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.3

and contentious litigation. And we have done our homework. We have carefully reviewed the record, seen the close attention given to this litigation by both Courts, and, of course, reviewed the various opinions, both oral and written, most recently the excellent opinion of the District Court now before us, an opinion we have considered in light of the
standards of review the Distric t Court was, and we are, required to apply. We are satisfied, following our review, to conclude, without further ado, that substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court in its thorough opinion, we
will affirm the Order of the Distri ct Cou rt dismissing as untimely the two appeals to it from the Bankruptcy Court , and affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s award of sanctions against Mr. Lin. 1

1 In Point 4 of their brief, the Trustee Appellees invited us to award damages against Mr. Lin under Fed. R. App . P. 38, and “reserve[d] the right” to file a motion for such relief if, at the conclusion of briefing, we had not addressed the matter “ sua sponte ”. (Trustee Appellees’ Br. at 27). A motion was subsequently filed. We will address the issue of Rule 38 damages there, not here.
# C_2014131EN.01000701.xml

| 30.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/7

---

Calls for proposals under the work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020

2014/C 131/06

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, is hereby launching two calls for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the work programme for 2014 in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020.

Proposals are invited for the following calls:

| | CEF-TC-2014-1, ‘Safer Internet’ |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2014-1, ‘Safer Internet’

| | CEF-TC-2014-2, ‘Europeana’ |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2014-2, ‘Europeana’

Call documentation including content, deadline and budget is given in the call texts which are published on the CEF Telecommunication website:

http://inea.ec.europa.eu/en/cef/cef_telecom/apply_for_funding/cef_telecom_call_for_proposals_2014.htm

---
• IN REPLY ftl!Fl!R TO: 

REF ID:A36.6 

DEPAh~.'.EN'I' 

~ 

OF THE .A1illY .._,. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

3Iel.G-3-mab 23 June 1948 

SUBJECT: Phtent ;;.pplication .• alJ.iam l•'. r'riedman 3erial No. 478,193 

TO: (;hitif, Anny ..:lecurity .t~gency 

.ia:ihillgton 25, D. G. 

Attn: l!r. 3tauffer 

Forwarded herewith is c0!1ummication from the U. 3. 

Patent Office regarding the subject application. r'orwarded 

also are the references cited. 

FOL '1'EZ CHJJ:F srra.:.i-.L (iFFICT-R: 

1 ::..ncl 

Comm cited above 

w/ref. 

~:~~ P::t.t.ent <..: ounsel 

Leeal Li ivision. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-22-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

.~ ... ·) 

.·' :/