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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PURO WATER
GROUP, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND FOR EACH OF THE
TWO YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (201)
<INVENTORY>                                        550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,506
<PP&E>                                           6,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (941)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,793
<SALES>                                         10,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,628
<CGS>                                            4,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,073
<INCOME-TAX>                                       446
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SAMSON WOUBETU
, ) ) Plaintiff
, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2 3

- 0949 (UNA) ) DSK MARIAM ETHIOPIAN ) ORTHODOX TEWAHIDO ) CHURCH PEOPLE
, ) ) Defendant

. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se c omplaint

. The Court grants the application and
, f or the reasons
discussed below, the dismisses the complaint

.
A pro se litigant’s pleadin g is held to less stringent standards than would be applied to a formal pleading drafted by lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro

se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch
, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s
jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
purpose of the minimum standard o f Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim
being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense
, and to

determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498
(D.D.C. 1977).2

Generally, plaintiff alleges that the priest and members of his church refuse to give him
money, talk to him, or allow him to eat in the dining room; they also beat him, insult him, and

watch him on camera. Missing from the complaint , h owever, is a statement establishing a basis
for this Court’s jurisdiction , a statement of claim or a demand for relief. As drafted, the
complaint fails to comply with the minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a) and,
therefore, must be dismissed

. A separate order will issue.

DATE: April 19, 2023 /s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge
# C_2011375EN.01003701.xml

| 22.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/37

---

Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2011 — Amending Budget No 2

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 287 of 30 September 2011
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 287 of 30 September 2011

(2011/C 375/10)

On page 3, the table should read as follows:

‘EXPENDITURE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2011 | Amending budget No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 |
| STAFF |
| 1 1 | STAFF IN ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT (1) | 21 501 802 | 550 924 | 22 052 726 |
| 1 2 | EXPENDITURE RELATED TO RECRUITMENT (2) | 120 000 | 170 000 | 290 000 |
| 1 3 | MISSIONS AND DUTY TRAVEL (3) | 900 000 | 70 100 | 970 100 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 23 301 802 | 791 024 | 24 092 826 |
| 2 |
| ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE |
| 2 1 | RENTAL OF BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (4) | 2 706 000 | 498 863 | 3 204 863 |
| 2 2 | MOVABLE PROPERTY AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (5) | 221 000 | 32 000 | 253 000 |
| 2 3 | CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE (6) | 479 500 | 25 500 | 505 000 |
| 2 5 | EEA GOVERNANCE (7) | 155 000 | 20 000 | 175 000 |
| | Title 2 — Total | 3 583 500 | 576 363 | 4 159 863 |
| 3 |
| OPERATING EXPENDITURE |
| 3 3 | RESOURCES (8) | 11 830 000 | 211 000 | 12 041 000 |
| 3 5 | STRATEGIC ACTIONS (9) | 2 570 000 | 18 421 613 | 20 991 613 |
| | Title 3 — Total | 14 400 000 | 18 632 613 | 33 032 613 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 41 285 302 | 20 000 000 | 61 285 302 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2011

Amending budget No 2

New amount

1

STAFF

1 1

STAFF IN ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT (1)

21 501 802

550 924

22 052 726

1 2

EXPENDITURE RELATED TO RECRUITMENT (2)

120 000

170 000

290 000

1 3

MISSIONS AND DUTY TRAVEL (3)

900 000

70 100

970 100

Title 1 — Total

23 301 802

791 024

24 092 826

2

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

2 1

RENTAL OF BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (4)

2 706 000

498 863

3 204 863

2 2

MOVABLE PROPERTY AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (5)

221 000

32 000

253 000

2 3

CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE (6)

479 500

25 500

505 000

2 5

EEA GOVERNANCE (7)

155 000

20 000

175 000

Title 2 — Total

3 583 500

576 363

4 159 863

3

OPERATING EXPENDITURE

3 3

RESOURCES (8)

11 830 000

211 000

12 041 000

3 5

STRATEGIC ACTIONS (9)

2 570 000

18 421 613

20 991 613

Title 3 — Total

14 400 000

18 632 613

33 032 613

GRAND TOTAL

41 285 302

20 000 000

61 285 302

---

(1)  2011: GIO: 550 924.

1

2011:

(2)  2011: GIO: 170 000.

2

2011:

(3)  2011: GIO: 70 100.

3

2011:

(4)  2011: GIO: 256 863.

4

2011:

(5)  2011: GIO: 32 000.

5

2011:

(6)  2011: GIO: 25 500.

6

2011:

(7)  2011: GIO: 20 000.

7

2011:

(8)  2011: GIO: 211 000.

8

2011:

(9)  2011: GIO: 18 421 613.’

9

2011:

---
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC







SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.







First Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Shares Rights Agreement







THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ("First Amendment"), dated May 30, 2006, to Third Amended and Restated Shares Rights Agreement, between Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") and Computershare Trust Company, N.A., as rights agent (the "Rights Agent").






WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, prior hereto, Sun and the Rights Agent entered into that certain Third Amended and Restated Shares Rights Agreement, dated as of July 25, 2002 (the "Rights Agreement");






WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement, prior to the occurence of a Distribution Date (as defined in the Rights Agreement), the Company may supplement or amend the Rights Agrement without the approval of any holders of Rights; 






WHEREAS, a Distribution Date has not occured; and






WHEREAS, Sun and the Rights Agent desire to amend the Rights Agreement as provided herein.






NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual agreements set forth herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:






Section 1.  Amendment of Section 1(q).  Section 1(q) is deleted in its entirety and replaced, in lieu thereof, with the following:






"(q)  "FINAL EXPIRATION DATE" shall mean May 30, 2006."






Section 2. Effectiveness.  This First Amendment shall be effective on May 30, 2006.






Section 3.  Governing Law.  This First Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract under the laws of the State of Delaware and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of such state applicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such state.






Section 4.  Counterparts.  This First Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterpart shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.






Section 5.  Descriptive Headings.  Descriptive headings of the several sections of this First Amendment are inserted for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions hereof.










































 



 



 










 



 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be duly executed as of May 30, 2006.






 



SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.






 



By: /s/ Michael A. Dillon



      Michael A. Dillon



      Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary






 



COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.






 



By: /s/ Joshua P. McGinn



      Joshua P. McGinn



      Senior Account Manager
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Waiters, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 579]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie *495Wittner, J.), rendered February 9, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Lorenda M. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Lorenzo McG., Appellant; Family Support Systems Unlimited, Inc., Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 70]-

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject children and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that petitioner agency made diligent and repeated efforts to fulfill its *371obligation to assist respondent father to overcome the obstacles to unification with the children. Although respondent belatedly obtained permanent housing, he failed to complete a drug rehabilitation program, discontinued therapy, missed many of his scheduled visits with the children and did not, within the statutorily relevant period, complete a parenting program. The finding of permanent neglect against respondent was thus properly premised upon his failure to plan for the children’s return *(see Matter of Rodney D.,*276 AD2d 333 [2000]).

The evidence was preponderant *(see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating respondent’s parental rights so as to facilitate the children’s adoption by their long-term foster mother. A suspended judgment was not warranted since there was no evidence that respondent had a realistic, feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the children *(see id.*at 142-143; *Matter of Latasha W.,*268 AD2d 340 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
|                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                               
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan   | Feb   | Mar   | Apr   | May   | Jun   | Jul   | Aug   | Sep   | Oct   | Nov   | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | -----
|2022                                                                                                                              |       |       | 28.89 | 28.72 | 15.29 | 20.30 | 13.42 | 36.04 | 28.09 | 32.11 | 24.07 | 27.97
|2023                                                                                                                              | 26.53 | 26.37 |       | 21.31 | 10.21 |       | 7.26  |       |       | 9.88  | 12.33 | 11.91
|2024                                                                                                                              |       | 10.65 | 7.87  | 7.38  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
*June 21, 2017*

2017-Ohio-4396.]

2016-1011.

#### Kerns v. Simmers.

In Mandamus. Sua sponte, the court orders that the parties shall file supplemental briefs that address the following issues:

1. The applicability to this action of the “takings” provisions of Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution and the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; and

2. Whether there is an adequate remedy at law available to relators in lieu of this mandamus action.

Relators shall file a supplemental brief within 20 days and respondents shall file a supplemental brief within 15 days of the filing of relators’ brief. No requests or stipulations for extension of time to file briefs are permitted and the clerk of court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

Oral argument shall be scheduled in this case after the filing of the supplemental briefs.
#### In the Matter of William J. Sedor, Jr., for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law.

[769 NYS2d 775]

— Order entered terminating suspension and reinstating petitioner to the practice of law. Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
C I TY O F GA R DN E R 

AIRPORT COMMISSION 

Room 226, City Hall - Gardner Ma 01440-2688 

Tel: (978) 630-4010 

FAX: (978) 630-4896 

December 6, 2015 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Lincoln Laboratory 

244 Wood St. 

Lexington, MA 02173 

John Benkerk, 

At the Airport Commission Meeting held on December 1, 2015 the Commission reviewed and 

unanimously approved the proposal by MIT Lincoln Labs to operate UAS (Unmanned Aerial 

System) at the Gardner Airport_ 

Very truly yours, /) 

~~0/ Kenneth Bonk 

Chairman Gardner Airport Commission
No. 85-971.

No. 85-972.

#### Clarke, Comptroller of the Currency *v.*Securities Industry Assn.; and Security Pacific National Bank *v.*Securities Industry Assn.

C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 475 U. S. 1044.] Motion of Legal Foundation of America for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted. Motion of the *1156Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of 
Electronic Processing, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-30847) for the 
registration of 270,000 shares of its common stock and options to acquire 
common stock, of our reports dated February 12, 1998, on our audits of the 
consolidated financial statements of Electronic Processing, Inc. as of 
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the years then ended, which 
reports are included in the Company's 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                       Baird, Kurtz & Dobson



Kansas City, Missouri
March 23, 1998
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6698
RAY EDWARD WELLS, a/k/a Ray Anthony Wells, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus LARRY W. POWERS; MEDICAL STAFF, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-04-178-8-CMC) Submitted: October 18, 2005 Decided: October 20, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Edward Wells, Appellant Pro Se. James Howarth Ritchie, Jr., Scott F. Talley, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ray Edward Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on February 23, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on May 5, 2005. * Because Wells failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Wells’ motions to expedite and for appointment of counsel, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the- 3 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                               
                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                               Hartford, Connecticut
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          
                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                     -----------------------------------------
                                          
                                          
         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
   incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
   previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Statement
   No. 333-29515) concerning its Employee Savings Plan, Registration Statement
   on Form S-8 (Registration Statement No. 333-29521) concerning its Union
   Employee Savings Plan and its Registration Statement on Form S-3
   (Registration Statement No.33-38087-99) concerning its Automatic Dividend
   Reinvestment Plan.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                     S/ Arthur Andersen LLP    
                                                  --------------------------   
                                                       (ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP)   
                                                                               
                                                                               
   Hartford, Connecticut
   December 17, 1997
    
    <PAGE>
[638 NYS2d 375]

#### In the Matter of David P. Boergers, an Attorney, Resignor.

Fourth Department,

February 2, 1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*David P.*Boergers, Kensington, Maryland, resignor *pro se.*

*Gerard M. LaRusso,*Buffalo, for Grievance Committee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The above-named attorney was admitted to practice by this Court on September 12,1972 and is currently in good standing. He has submitted an affidavit requesting that this Court accept his resignation from the practice of law in New York State. His affidavit states that he is currently employed as an attorney with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C., that he has never practiced law in New York, that he does not intend to return to this State to practice *365law, and that he is resigning because he no longer wishes to maintain his attorney registration in this State. There are no complaints pending against him.

We grant the application and direct that his name be removed from the roll of attorneys.

Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ., concur.

Resignation accepted, and name removed from roll of attorneys.