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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SCB COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
JANUARY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,843,134
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,266,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    862,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,032,842
<PP&E>                                      35,159,208
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,990,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,850,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,713,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       247,119
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,824,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,850,363
<SALES>                                    123,931,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           123,931,594
<CGS>                                       92,035,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,035,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,735,829
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,886,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (545,834)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (183,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (362,834)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (362,834)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)


</TABLE>
# Amtsblatt C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-088X
  doi:10.3000/1977088X.CA2014.019.ger |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 19A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 57. Jahrgang22. Januar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-088X

doi:10.3000/1977088X.CA2014.019.ger

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 19A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

57. Jahrgang22. Januar 2014

---

| Informationsnummer | Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Bekanntmachungen |
| | VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN |
| | Europäische Arzneimittel-Agentur |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Widerruf der Auswahlverfahren | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Inhalt

Seite

V   Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäische Arzneimittel-Agentur

2014/C 019A/01

Widerruf der Auswahlverfahren

1

ÜBERSICHT DER IM C A-AMTSBLATT VERÖFFENTLICHTEN AUSWAHLVERFAHREN

Anbei finden Sie eine Liste der C A-Amtsblätter, die im Jahr 2014 bisher veröffentlicht wurden.

Die Amtsblätter sind — wenn nicht anders angegeben — in allen Sprachfassungen erschienen.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

V Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäische Arzneimittel-Agentur

| 22.1.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 19/1

---

Widerruf der Auswahlverfahren

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Die Europäische Arzneimittel-Agentur hat beschlossen, die folgenden Auswahlverfahren zu widerrufen:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: Vertragsbediensteter (m/w) (kurzfristig), Wissenschaftliche Unterstützung für die Europäische Überwachung des Verbrauchs antimikrobieller Mittel in der Veterinärmedizin (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: Vertragsbediensteter (m/w) (kurzfristig), Wissenschaftliche Unterstützung für die Europäische Überwachung des Verbrauchs antimikrobieller Mittel in der Veterinärmedizin (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1);

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: Vertragsbediensteter (m/w) (kurzfristig), Wissenschaftliches Sekretariat für die Erstellung von Stellungnahmen der Europäischen Kommission zur Antibiotikaresistenz, Abteilung Tierarzneimittel (FG IV) (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: Vertragsbediensteter (m/w) (kurzfristig), Wissenschaftliches Sekretariat für die Erstellung von Stellungnahmen der Europäischen Kommission zur Antibiotikaresistenz, Abteilung Tierarzneimittel (FG IV) (2).

---

(1)  ABl. C 320 A vom 6.11.2013, S. 2.

(2)  Siehe Fußnote 1.

---
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 

### 07186 Removed from Public (Non-CBI) Docket 1 Copyright

Flag2 File Name Description 

### x 07186\07186_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07186\07186_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07186\07186_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07186\07186_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07186\07186_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07186\07186_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07186\07186_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07186\07186_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 07186\Certification Statement Plant ID 07186.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 07186\Supplemental Documents\07186_Aerial Map-1 Diagram- Alma Station for EPA Effluent Questio.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 07186\Supplemental Documents\07186_Aerial Map-2 Diagram - Alma Station for EPA Effluent Questi.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### x 07186\Supplemental Documents\07186_Email from EPA Re Effluent Guidelines

Questionnaire Comple.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response



### x 07186\Supplemental Documents\07186_Water Balance WB-1 Diagram for EPA Effluent

Questionnaire P.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
**Exhibit 32.4**

 

**BRAUN CONSULTING, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PUSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

                Inconnection with the amendment to the Annual Report of BraunConsulting, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year endedDecember 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Schuler, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Thomas A. Schuler                                                              |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Thomas A. Schuler                                                                  |   |
| *Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)* |   |
| April 29, 2004                                                                     |   |

 

----
#### Catherine E. Palmer, App’lt, v. The Commercial Travelers’ Mutual Accident Ass’n of America, Resp’t.

*Edwin Nottingham,*for app’lt; *M. W. Van Auken,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 248.
Filed June 5, 1891.

#### Wm. A. Sweet *v.*The City of Syracuse.

See 38 N. Y. State Rep., 607.

No papers.

Motion to advance Nos. 153 and 331 granted, and cases to be heard on such day of next week as counsel may agree upon.
#### PEOPLE *v.*VANDERAH.

1. Criminal Law—Drunk Driving—Blood Test—Admissibility.

Results of blood test consented to by defendant charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor are admissible in evidence by statute (CLS 1961, § 257-.625; § 257.625a, as amended by PA 1964, No 104).

References for Points in Headnotes

[1] 7 Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 332; 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 365; 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 370, 830.

[2] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses §§ 674, 675, 767, 770, 774, 776, 781.

[3] 7 Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 330.

*7232. Same — Evidence—Impeachment—Transcript—Authentication.

Trial court ruling prohibiting defendant from impeaching a witness at his trial for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor by use of an unauthenticated transcript from another trial *held,*proper (CLS 1961, § 257-.625).

3. Same — Past Driving Record — Intoxicating Liquor.

Bringing out of defendant’s past driving record on cross-examination of him at his trial for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor *held,*proper (CLS 1961, § 257.625).

Appeal from Wayne, Farmer (Charles S.), J.

Submitted Division 1 June 6, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 4,070.)

Decided June 24, 1968.

Robert William Vanderah was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *William L. Cahalan,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Russell W. Schmidt, "Wayne*City Attorney, for the people.

*David H. Fried*and *Martin S. Baum,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. CLS 1961, § 257.625 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 9.2325). He contends that the results of a consented-to blood test were inadmissible over his objection; that the trial court improperly prohibited defendant from impeaching a witness by use of an unauthenticated transcript from another trial and that defendant’s prior driving record was erroneously brought out on his cross-examination.

*724CLS 1961, § 257.625a, as amended by PA 1964, No 104 (Stat Ann 1967 Cum Supp § 9.2325[1]) authorizes the admission in evidence of the results of such a test. The trial court’s rulings on the impeachment question and on defendant’s past driving record were proper.

Affirmed.

Quinn, P. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H, G-illis, JJ., concurred.
#### Yeckes-Eichenbaum, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Wilson McCarthy et al., as Trustees of the Property of Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad, in Reorganization Proceedings, Appellants.

Submitted June 14, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

Motion by respondent for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 290 N. Y. 437.)
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We hereby
consent to the use in this year end Audited Consolidated Financial Statement
issued on March 31, 2008, relating to the financial statements of Power of the
Dream Ventures, Inc. (formerly TIA V, Inc.) as of December 31, 2007 for
year then ended.






Dated:
March 31, 2008.  Budapest, Hungary






/s/ Ferenc Baumgartner
            
            /s/ Andras NagyFerenc
      Baumgartner
            
            Andras
      NagyGeneral
      Manager
            
            Registered
      AuditorBDO
      Kontroll Ltd.
            
            BDO
      Kontroll Ltd.
#### Jimie L. STARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PARBALL CORPORATION, DBA Bally’s Las Vegas, Defendant-Appellee, and Does I-X, inclusive, Defendant, Roe Corporations I-X, Inclusive, Defendant.

No. 16-15641

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Jimie L. Starks, Pro Se

Patrick H. Hicks, Esquire, Attorney, Montgomery Y. Paek, Attorney, Littler Mendelson, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jimie L. Starks appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII and Nevada’s anti-discrimination statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Starks’ racial discrimination and retaliation claims because Starks failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions were pre-textual. *See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.,*281 F.3d 1054, 1062, 1064 (9th *526Cir. 2002) (setting forth elements of and burden shifting requirements for discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII); *Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist.,*272 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001) (to avoid summary judgment on retaliation claim, “[c]ir-cumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial” (citation omitted)); *Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co.,*104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996) (same for discrimination claim); *see also Apeceche v. White Pine County,*96 Nev. 723, 615 P.2d 975, 977-78 (1980) (a discrimination claim under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330 is analyzed under federal anti-discrimination law).

We do not consider Starks’ challenge to the district court’s granting of Starks’ counsel’s motion to withdraw because Starks did not oppose this motion in the district court. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (arguments raised for the first time on appeal are not considered).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See id.*

Starks’ motion to file an oversized opening brief (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the three months ended December 31, 2010 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    LEO M.
CHUPASKALeo M. Chupaska Chief Financial Officer, Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority
February 14, 2011


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Order filed February 2, 2012. 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-01034-CV

____________

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant

V.

WALLACE L. MEEKS, JAMES M. GRAHAM, JR. AND TOMMY C. THOMPSON, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-33406

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due January 16, 2012. No brief or motion for extension of time has 

been filed. 

Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before March 2, 2012, the 

court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 4.1.1
 
 COMMON STOCK THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN JERSEY CITY, NJ. NEW YORK. NY AND PITTSBURGH. PA Aviat Networks, Inc.
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COMMON STOCK SEE REVERSE FOR ABBREVIATIONS AND STATEMENT OF RIGHTS GRANTED
TO EACHCLASS OF SHARES CUSIP 05366y 10 2 THIS CERTIFIES THAT is the registered holder of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF
THE PAR VALUE OF S0.01 EACH OF THE COMMON STOCK OF Aviat Networks, Inc.transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder
hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid
unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile
signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated: SEAL President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Assistant Secretary




---



##### 



Aviat Networks, Inc. A copy of the statement of the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions
granted to or imposed upon the respective classes of shares of the Corporation authorized to be issued
and upon the holders thereof as established by the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, (or by
any certificate of determination of preferences), and the number of shares constituting each class and the designation
thereof, will be furnished to any stockholder of the Corporation upon request and without charge at the principal office
of the Corporation. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate. shall be construed
as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM  as tenants in
common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT  Custodian TEN ENT  as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN  as joint tenants with right of under
unilorn Gilts to Minos survivorship and not as tenants Act. Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above
list. For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE. OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital stock represented by the within
Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney, to transfer the said shares on the books of the within named
Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE
NAME AS ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER Signature(s) Guaranteed By THE SIGNATURE SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY A BROKERAGE
FIRM OR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION THAT IS A MEMBER OF A SECURITIES APPROVED MEDALLION PROGRAM. SUCH AS A SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION
PROGRAM (STAMP), STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM (SEMP) OR NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE. INC MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM (MSP)
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 29, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00748-CV

IN RE RAFAEL OJEDA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-03779A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 4, 2015, relator Rafael Ojeda filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

Mike Engelhart, presiding judge of the 151st District Court of Harris County, to 

dismiss the garnishment action pending in the trial court based on a forumselection clause. 
2

On September 4, 2015, the same day relator filed his petition in this court, 

the trial court signed the final judgment in the garnishment action. Therefore, 

relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We also 

deny relator’s motion for temporary relief and motion for expedited consideration 

of the motion for temporary relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan.
#### Juan Luis CANO-VILLA, AKA Alejandro Luis Garcia-Corral, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73354

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Sylvia L. Esparza, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Sylvia L. Esparza, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Melissa Katherine Lott, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Luis Cano-Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Singh v. Holder,*771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cano-Villa’s motion to reopen and administratively close proceedings, where he did not establish prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 599 (9th Cir. 2006) (failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought is one of at least three independent grounds on which the BIA can deny a motion to reopen).

We will not review the IJ’s determination regarding jurisdiction because the BIA did not rely on that ground. *See Owino v. Holder,*771 F.3d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 2014) (court’s review is limited to the BIA’s decision unless the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted (citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.