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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,811
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                        62
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,699
<PP&E>                                           3,048
<DEPRECIATION>                                     385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,238
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           17,817
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,793
<OTHER-SE>                                    (47,740)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,244
<SALES>                                            385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,576
<CGS>                                              297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    21
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,401)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,401)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
REF ID:A66596 

~SF SBeffRf ... SJ56QlU!¥ $FQIUIM'l.Qlf 

C<MmNTS ON MEMO FOR T.aE l'IRECTOO 

11 DEC 1953 

SUBJECTi COMSEC Equipment tor the French Foreign Ott!ce 

1. !n connection vith para 1'.a.(2) 1 l think "We should keep in 

mind the p0ssibility that instead ot providin~ the French v:tth 

.AFSAw ... 7200 for ta.pa production, at a cost ot $201000 :per unit, 

the Uagelin mechanical one ... time tape production machine might 'be 

available, and at a :much lover cost. Also, it may be that the 

ltagelin on-line teleprinter encryption maahine using one-time 

tapo associated with the new Siemens teleprinter might also 

become available by nda~1954. 

2. othel"W"1ae1 I concur in the memo. 

WILLIAM F. FRIEDMA! 

Special Assistant 

-n----Oeclassifi ed and approved for release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352fl
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MOHAMMAD KHAN, 

Debtor, 

______________________________ 

MOHAMMAD KHAN, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, successor in 

interest to Bank of America, 

Appellee.

No. 19-55998 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00809-JGB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Mohammad Khan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-55998 

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting U.S. Bank retroactive relief from 

the automatic bankruptcy stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). 

We review for an abuse of discretion, Mac Donald v. Mac Donald (In re Mac 

Donald), 755 F.2d 715, 716 (9th Cir. 1985), and we affirm. 

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting retroactive 

relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay because it properly weighed the Fjelsted

factors and concluded that eleven of the twelve factors weighed in favor of 

granting relief. See Fjelsted v. Lien (In re Fjelsted), 293 B.R. 12, 25 (B.A.P. 9th 

Cir. 2003) (setting forth factors to consider in deciding whether to annul an 

automatic bankruptcy stay). We reject as unsupported by the record Khan’s 

contentions that U.S. Bank lied to the bankruptcy court about its knowledge of 

Khan’s bankruptcy proceedings or that Khan was prevented from presenting 

information to the bankruptcy or district courts. 

We do not consider Khan’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that 

the bankruptcy court’s order violated the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights. 

See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we 

will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).

Khan’s request to supplement the opening brief, set forth in the opening 

brief, is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certification of CEO/Treasurer

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Southeastern Banking Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Cornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO of
the Company, and Alyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ CORNELIUS P. HOLLAND, IIICornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO


/s/ ALYSON G. BEASLEYAlyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer


Date: June 6, 2011
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 12.1 UNIFRAX CORPORATION COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
             FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                  1999              2000            2001
                                                                  ----              ----            ----
                                                                             (IN THOUSANDS)

<S>                                                           <C>               <C>               <C>
Earnings from continuing operations before
     income taxes and minority interest                       $   7,766         $  11,390        $ 12,885

Fixed charges

     Interest                                                    11,335            11,692          12,626

     Imputed interest on operating lease
         obligations                                                278               561             848
                                                          -------------     -------------    ------------
                                                                 11,613            12,253          13,474

Adjusted earnings available for payment of
     fixed charges                                        $      19,379     $      23,643    $     26,359
                                                          =============     =============    ============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                 1.7                1.9             2.0
                                                          =============     =============    ============

</TABLE>



                                                                              57
# C_2015229EN.01000402.xml

| 14.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/4

---

Special Report No 8/2015

‘Is EU financial support adequately addressing the needs of micro-entrepreneurs?’

(2015/C 229/05)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 8/2015 ‘Is EU financial support adequately addressing the needs of micro-entrepreneurs?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
#### Natalie Gottfried, Plaintiff, *v.*Allan Natanson, an Infant over the Age of Fourteen Years, by Carolyn Natanson, His Guardian ad Litem, Defendant.

City Court of New York, Special Term, New York County,

December 20, 1937.

*Nathan D. Leiman,*for the plaintiff.

*David Steckler,*for the defendant.

*448Wendel, Ch. J.

Motion to charge the guardian *ad litem*of the infant defendant with liability for costs is denied. While under the Code of Civil Procedure the guardian *ad litem*of an infant plaintiff was liable for costs unless the infant prosecuted as a poor person, the liability of the guardian of an infant defendant was limited to such cases where he was expressly charged therewith by the court for personal misconduct. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 469, 477.) Under the Civil Practice Act there is no liability for costs of a guardian *ad litem*unless expressly charged therewith by order of the court. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 205.) The section is intended for the protection of the infant, and unless it be shown that the guardian has been guilty of misconducting the prosecution or defense of his infant ward there is no reason why the court should impose liability for costs on him. No misconduct of the guardian is here shown. Order filed.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F TEXA S

N o

. P D

- 0 7 5 9

- 1 3

J O Y C E M C M I L L I N S T U R D I V A N T

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F I R S T C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

M C L E N N A N C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m

.

O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r a n d a t t e m p t e d c a p i t a l m u r d e r a n d s e n t e n c e d t o

t h i r t y y e a r s a n d f

i f t e e n y e a r s c o n f

i n e m e n t

. O n a p p e a l

, A p p e l l a n t c l a i m e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t

e r r e d i n t a x i n g a s c o u r t c o s t s t h e a m o u n t s p a i d t o a t t o r n e y s p r o t e m f o r t h e S t a t e a n d t h e

e x p e n s e s f

o r t h e S t a t e ’ s i n v e s t i g a t o r s a n d e x p e r t s

. T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t A p p e l l a n t

f a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e t h i s c l a i m b e c a u s e s h e d i d n o t c o m p l a i n t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d s h e d i d n o t

f i l e a n y p o s t

-

j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s c o m p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e s e c o u r t c o s t s w a s

i m p r o p e r

. A p p e l l a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

.2

W h e n t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s i s s u e d i t s o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e

, i t d i d s o w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t

o f t h i s C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n i n L a n d e r s v

. S t a t e

, 4 0 2 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 2 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 3 )

.

T h e r e f o r e

, w e v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a n d r e m a n d f o r t h a t c o u r t t o

c o n s i d e r t h e e f

f e c t o f L a n d e r s

, i f a n y

, o n i t s r e a s o n i n g a n d a n a l y s i s i n t h i s c a s e

.

D e l i v e r e d : O c t o b e r 9

, 2 0 1 3

P u b l i s h
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>
                                TIME WARNER INC.

                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Time Warner Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              1,284
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       6,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                        1,682
<INVENTORY>                                         6,383
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    9,861
<PP&E>                                             14,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                      5,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     51,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               9,670
<BONDS>                                            18,083
<COMMON>                                               13
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                          9,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       51,239
<SALES>                                            27,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   27,333
<CGS>                                              13,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      13,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  1,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     3,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                        1,540
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 1,960
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        12
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                        1,948
<EPS-BASIC>                                          1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.42



</TABLE>
#### Beggs vs. Beggs and others.

*November 11*

*November 30, 1880.*

Pleading: Pbactice. *(1) Frivolous demurrer. (2) Bemedp for irrelevant matter in pleading.*

1. Where a reply is in legal effect merely a denial of facts alleged in the answer by way of counterclaim, any *demurrer*thereto *is frivolous.*

2. If the reply contains irrelevant and redundant matter, defendant’s remedy is by motion to strike out such matter.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Wauhesha*County.

The pleadings in this case were the complaint, the answer, a reply, and separate demurrers by different defendants to the reply as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the matters alleged in the answer. On plaintiff’s motion, the *444court made an order *“*overruling” the demurrers as frivolous, but with leave to defendants to demur anew, on.terms. Erom this order defendants appealed.

Eor the appellants there was a brief by *A. Goolc*and *P. H. Oarney,*and oral argument by *J. V. V. Platto.*

*D. H. Sumner,*for the respondent.

Cole, *G. J.*

We are inclined to hold the demurrers in this case frivolous within our decisions. The action is ejectment. The defendants answer the general denial; allege title in themselves by virtue of an actual occupancy and possession of the premises for more than ten years, under certain conveyances named, and in effect claim the statutory lien for permanent and valuable improvements made on the land, and for taxes paid thereon under a claim of title asserted in good faith. To these answers the plaintiff put in a reply, which contains a general denial of the allegations of the answer, and also sets up much redundant matter in reference to a vendor’s lien and waste. It is evident, however, that the reply only amounts to a general denial of the matter stated in the answer in the nature of a counterclaim (see *Scott v. Reese,*38 Wis., 636), and no other or different effect can be given to it as a pleading. The real issue, therefore, was formed by the denial, in the repty, of the counterclaim, and the circuit court possibly may have so regarded it; at all events, practically, the demurrer was to a reply which only amounted to a general denial. It requires no argument, no research or deliberation, to determine the character of such a demurrer and show that it is frivolous. That is the criterion established by this court to determine whether or not a pleading is frivolous. *Cottrill v. Cramer,*40 Wis., 555, and cases cited in the opinion. We have already said that the reply contains much irrelevant and redundant matter; but the remedy for this was by a motion to strike out, not by demurrer. Section 2683, R. S.; *Horton v. Arnold,*17 Wis., 139; *Williams v. Sexton,*19 Wis., 42.

*445The order “ overruling,” or, more properly speaking, striking out the demurrers, gave the defendants leave to demur answ within twenty days, upon payment of five dollars costs. As the. issue had already been formed by the pleadings, no such leave should have been granted.

*By 1j!is Court.*— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
MAR-10-2011 02:38PM1 FROWDEP AIR BUREAU

PAUL R . LEPAGE 

### GOVMNOR March 10, 2011 David Conroy EPA-New

England, Region I 5 Past Office Square, Suite 100 Boslon, MA 02100-3912 

### Dear Mr. Conroy: 2877641 T-051 P.002/002 F-876 STATE OF MAINE DEI' :LR"I'MENZ' OF F-NVIRQ'k;1h*ENTA-L PROTECTION

pARRYL N . BROWN COAN~,°'SqNER

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted an Wrastructure State Implementation Plan (SJP) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 3, 2008 demonstrating that Maine is in compliance with the procedural, timing and infrastructure requirements contained i.n section I 10(a)(1) and (2) ofthe 1990 Cl= Air Act Amendments (CAA) as required for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards . On December 30, 2010, EPAsubsequently finalized its proposed rulemaking to "narrow" its previous approval of prevention of significant deterioration (PSX7) programs in SIPS frorn, 24 states t11at apply to greenhouse gas (CrHG) permitting programs, including Mailie. Through this action, EPAwithdrew its previous approval of these programs to the e:xtent they apply PSD to GHGemitting sources below the thresholds in the final Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31,514) . Since that part of the section 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure SIP pertaining to PSDhas subsequently been narrowed by EPA's action, Maine is requesting that EPA therefore consider only the narrowed PSDprogriun in its review of the Maine Infrastructure SIP submittal . 

### Thai dc you for your attention to this matter, and I maybe reached at (207) 287'-7647 if you should have any questions.



### .leffre-~ S. Crawford Dzxr,ion of ProgramPlanning Burc-au ofAir Quality Cc: AnneArnold, EPA Region I James Brooks, DEP

AUGUSTA 17 STATE HOUSE STArION AUGUSTA, MAINE 043 33-0017 '707) 287-7688 TAX

; (20 ; ) :87-7826 RAY BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 106 HOGAN ROAD, SUITE 6 312 CANCOROAD 1235 CENTRAL TDRfVE, SKYWAY PARK BANGOIL, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQL1E ISLE, MAINE 04fi79-Z094 (207) 947-4570 FAX

: (207) 941-45p4 (?07) 822-6300 FAY : (307) 822- :303 (207) 764-0477 FAX : 1,207) 760-3143 web srte: wwa.mqine .gnv/ i .:P
May 9, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TERESA TROTTER, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00431-CV V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, 

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWABS, INC., ASSETBACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-8, ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR 

ASSIGNS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, The Bank of 

New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the 

Certificateholders CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-8, Its 

Successors and/or Assigns, signed March 30, 2012, was heard on the transcript of 

the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We 

order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2015306EN.01000202.xml

| 17.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7751 — CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS/PKP Energetyka)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 306/04)

On 9 September 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7751. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7751. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
EX-23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

Board of Directors
GraphOn Corporation

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-88255 and No. 333-40174) and Form S-3 (No.
333-51420) of our report dated February 5, 2002, relating to the financial
statements of GraphOn Corporation appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                    /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                    -----------------------------
                                    BDO Seidman, LLP

San Jose, California
March 29, 2002