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

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR SPARTA SURGICAL CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MAY 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   May-31-1998
<CASH>                                             1,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    441,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      34,000
<INVENTORY>                                    2,111,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,551,000
<PP&E>                                           506,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   330,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,402,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,389,000
<BONDS>                                        2,374,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                      599,000
<COMMON>                                           4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      (964,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,402,000
<SALES>                                          719,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 719,000
<CGS>                                            385,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    385,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                93,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  188,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              188,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     188,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.13
        


</TABLE>
34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a

demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).

First, appellant claimed he had good cause pursuant to Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 566
U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), because counsel was ineffective in advising him to reject a plea offer from the State. Appellant's good cause argument was without merit because this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was always available to be raised and appellant failed to demonstrate why he waited more than 10 years to raise it. Further, because his case was final when Lafler and Frye were decided, he failed to demonstrate that the cases would apply retroactively to him. Even if Lafler and Frye announced new rules of constitutional law, he failed to allege facts that meet either exception to the general principle that such rules do not apply retroactively to cases which were already final when the new rules were announced. See Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807, 816-17, 59 P.3d 463, 469-70 (2002). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Next, relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he was not appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We conclude that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel was discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings, see NRS 34.750(1), and appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Further, this court has recently held that Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel,
Nev. P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014). Thus, the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A 94104,J. Douglas 

# a ]

Cherry failure to appoint post-conviction counsel and the decision in Martinez would not provide good cause for this late and successive petition. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



# 4 1.10.AveaAti

n J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge William Edward French Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A
----

----

| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               | /s/ Jonathan Z. Cohen   |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Date:  December 11, 2009 | Jonathan Z. Cohen       |
|                               | Chief Executive Officer |
|                               |                    |

----

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 2146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-910]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-175-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Request 
Under Blanket Authorization

January 9, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 30, 1996, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), 200 North Third Street, Bismark, 
North Dakota 58501 filed in Docket No. CP97-175-000 a request pursuant 
to Sections 157.205, and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under 
the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.216) for approval and 
permission to abandon a farm tap located in Dawson County, Montana, 
under the blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-487-000, et 
al., pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more 
fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Williston Basin asserts that Montana-Dakota Utilities Company 
(Montana-Dakota), a local distribution company, has extended its 
distribution system to serve the load previously served through the tap 
which Williston now proposes to abandon. Williston Basin also asserts 
that removal of the tap will eliminate the possibility of ice damage to 
the tap's riser from the flooding of a nearby river.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days after the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant 
to Sec. 157.205 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the 
time allowed therefor, the proposed activities shall be deemed to be 
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a 
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 30 days after the time 
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as 
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-910 Filed 1-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### State v. Martin

106,905

08/19/13

Denied.

Unpublished
# m94_59a
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
						       EXHIBIT 27.

			     SCAN-OPTICS, INC.
			   FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

       
<S>                                        <C>          <C>          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS      12-MOS       12-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996 DEC-31-1995  DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1996 DEC-31-1995  DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                        1,279,000     281,000      178,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0           0            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 9,262,000  10,297,000    9,124,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    673,000     413,000      279,000
<INVENTORY>                                  14,920,000  13,746,000   14,223,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             26,735,000  25,585,000   24,608,000
<PP&E>                                       19,322,000  18,149,000   17,894,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               15,147,000  14,340,000   13,272,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               31,121,000  29,514,000   29,619,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         9,417,000  11,346,000   10,593,000
<BONDS>                                               0           0            0
<PREFERRED>                                           0           0            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0           0            0
<COMMON>                                        139,000     139,000      138,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   21,068,000  17,612,000   18,593,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 31,121,000  29,514,000   29,619,000
<SALES>                                      30,275,000  27,642,000   26,988,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             46,034,000  42,084,000   43,889,000
<CGS>                                        19,622,000  19,487,000   17,584,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                42,851,000  43,460,000   42,724,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 82,000      49,000       79,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0           0            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0           0            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               3,265,000 (1,327,000)    1,244,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (9,000)    (72,000)     (40,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           3,274,000 (1,255,000)    1,284,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0           0            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0           0            0
<CHANGES>                                             0           0            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  3,274,000 (1,255,000)    1,284,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .49       (.19)          .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .49       (.19)          .19
        


</TABLE>
# m94_01a
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000060549
<NAME> LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,687,863
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      1,096
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         297,848
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        54,298
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,041,105
<COMMON>                                       424,334
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           72
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            249,466
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 673,872
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     95,328
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           626,800
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   20,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 625,105
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,041,105
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      614,110
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            47,553
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     456,678
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     504,231
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        109,879 
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,364
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 112,243 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        29,566
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,677
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,433
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   79,244
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        20,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       28,436
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         127,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-5697.

#### Olmos-Amador *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Jorge Gonzalez Rocha and Kirk Gipson

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00 431

- C V

Trial court case number: 2020

- 19803

Trial court: 129 th District Court of Harris County

Alexander M. Gurevich of the Law Offices of Alexander M. Gurevich, PC, has filed a motion for leave to withdraw as appellate counsel for appellees, Jorge Gonzalez Rocha and Kirk Gipson. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 6.5(a), (b). The motion requests leave to withdr aw because the representation of appellees “has been rendered unreasonably difficult due to the . . . lack of communication and lack of cooperation” with counsel.

The motion complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
6.5. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5(a), (b). Further, the motion includes a certificate of conference representing that no party is opposed to the relief requested in the motion. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2).
Accordingly, the motion is granted . The Clerk of this Court is directed to note the withdrawal of Alexander M. Gurevich of the Law Offices of Alexander M. Gurevich, PC as counsel for appellees on the docket of this Court.
Alexander M. Gurevich is directed to immediately notify appellees of “any
deadline s or settings that [he] knows about at the time of withdrawal but that were not previously disclosed” to appellees and file a copy of the notice provided to appellees with
the Clerk of this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 6.5(c)

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____

/s/ Amparo Guerra

_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ September 30, 2021

_____
##### 



Exhibit 8

Significant Group companies as at December 31, 2001

|                                    |  |                               |  |                                                          
|----------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Name                                |  | Jurisdiction of incorporation |  | Proportion held directly or indirectly by Registrants (%)
|                                   
|Shell Holdings (U.K.) Limited       |  | UK                            |  | 100                                                      
|Shell Oil Company                   |  | Delaware, USA                 |  | 100                                                      
|Shell Petroleum Inc.                |  | Delaware, USA                 |  | 100                                                      
|Shell Petroleum N.V                 |  | The Netherlands               |  | 100                                                      
|Shell U.K. Limited                  |  | UK                            |  | 100                                                      
|The Shell Petroleum Company Limited |  | UK                            |  | 100                                                      
|                                   

E2      Exhibits
# t8p01p1
No. 12-5829.

#### Shallowhorn *v.*Stribling, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 13.1

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 Annual Report of Mesoblast Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2017 as filed on the date hereof (the “Report”) ”), I, Silviu Itescu, Chief Executive Officer for the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: I, Silviu Itescu, certify that: 

|   | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| Date: August 30, 2017 |   | By:    | /s/ Silviu Itescu  |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|                  |   |   | Silviu Itescu                |
|                  |   |   | Chief Executive Officer      |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY BRIGHT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 169 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY BRIGHT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 170 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 555 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Ovarian Cancer Awareness 

Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2010 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. SPECTER, Mrs. MURRAY, 

Mr. BAYH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. CARDIN, 

Mr. MENENDEZ, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Ovarian Cancer 

Awareness Month. 

Whereas ovarian cancer is the deadliest of all gynecologic 

cancers; 

Whereas ovarian cancer is the 5th leading cause of cancer 

deaths among women in the United States; 

Whereas more than 22,000 women will be diagnosed with 

ovarian cancer this year, and more than 15,000 will die 

from it; 

Whereas these deaths are those of our mothers, sisters, 

daughters, family members, and community leaders; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 555 IS 

Whereas the mortality rate for ovarian cancer has not significantly decreased since the ‘‘War on Cancer’’ was declared, nearly 40 years ago; 

Whereas all women are at risk for ovarian cancer, and 90 

percent of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer do not 

have a family history that puts them at higher risk; 

Whereas the Pap test is sensitive and specific to the early detection of cervical cancer, but not to ovarian cancer; 

Whereas there is currently no reliable early detection test for 

ovarian cancer; 

Whereas many people are unaware that the symptoms of 

ovarian cancer often include bloating, pelvic or abdominal 

pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, urinary 

symptoms, and several other symptoms that are easily 

confused with other diseases; 

Whereas in June 2007, the first national consensus statement on ovarian cancer symptoms was developed to provide consistency in describing symptoms to make it easier 

for women to learn and remember them; 

Whereas, due to the lack of a reliable early detection test, 75 

percent of cases of ovarian cancer are detected at an advanced stage, making the overall 5-year survival rate only 

45 percent; 

Whereas there are factors that are known to reduce the risk 

for ovarian cancer and that play an important role in the 

prevention of the disease; 

Whereas awareness of the symptoms of ovarian cancer by 

women and health care providers can lead to a quicker 

diagnosis; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 555 IS 

Whereas, each year during the month of September, the 

Ovarian Cancer National Alliance and its partner members holds a number of events to increase public awareness of ovarian cancer; and 

Whereas September 2010 should be designated as ‘‘National 

Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month’’ to increase the 

awareness of the public regarding the cancer: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and 

2 ideals of National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Global Traffic Network, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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(s) 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):
    By:
    /s/ Scott E. CodyScott E. Cody, Chief Financial Officerand Chief Operating Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)