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

<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Globecomm Systems Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          23,071                  23,071
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,680                  15,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                       261                     261
<INVENTORY>                                      4,832                    4832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,839                  45,839
<PP&E>                                          28,566                  28,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,316                   3,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,890                  75,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,097                  16,097
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,000                   5,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            10                      10
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,404                  40,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,890                  75,890
<SALES>                                         17,373                  36,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,373                  36,798
<CGS>                                           14,968                  31,885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,178                   7,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   101                     153
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 258                     317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,137                     398
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,137                     398
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,137                     398
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.12                    0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11                    0.04





</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Monakey, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 712] —

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered on or about February 23, 2010, 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.

Counsel for appellant is referred to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 606.5. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 295 

Designating October 26, 2011, as ‘‘Day of the Deployed’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2011 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

ISAKSON, Mr. BLUNT, and Mr. BOOZMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating October 26, 2011, as ‘‘Day of the Deployed’’. 

Whereas more than 2,270,000 people serve as members of 

the United States Armed Forces; 

Whereas several hundred thousand members of the Armed 

Forces rotate each year through deployments to 150 

countries in every region of the world; 

Whereas more than 2,300,000 members of the Armed Forces 

have deployed to the area of operations of the United 

States Central Command since the September 11, 2001, 

terrorist attacks; 

Whereas the United States is kept strong and free by the 

loyal military personnel who protect our precious heritage 

through their positive declaration and actions; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 295 ATS 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces serving at home and 

abroad have courageously answered the call to duty to 

defend the ideals of the United States and to preserve 

peace and freedom around the world; 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces personify the virtues 

of patriotism, service, duty, courage, and sacrifice; 

Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces make 

important and significant sacrifices for the United 

States; 

Whereas North Dakota began honoring the members of the 

Armed Forces and their families by designating October 

26 as ‘‘Day of the Deployed’’ in 2006 ; and 

Whereas 40 States designated October 26, 2010, as ‘‘Day of 

the Deployed’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) honors the members of the United States 

3 Armed Forces who are deployed; 

4 (2) calls on the people of the United States to 

5 reflect on the service of those members of the United 

6 States Armed Forces, wherever they serve, past, 

7 present, and future; 

8 (3) designates October 26, 2011, as ‘‘Day of 

9 the Deployed’’; and 

10 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

11 to observe ‘‘Day of the Deployed’’ with appropriate 

12 ceremonies and activities. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Lynn HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY, c/o Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-1510.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 30, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

*766Douglas Steinberg, Alexandria, Virginia; George R. Royer, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Monika L. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lynn Howard appeals from the district court’s order granting the United States Army’s motion to dismiss his Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) claims and dismissing his complaint in its entirety without leave to amend to add state law tort claims and claims under the Equal Pay Act. On appeal, Howard argues that the district court erred in part because it dismissed his action based on failure to file his Title VII and ADEA claims within the ninety-day statutory deadline. He also alleges that the court erred in dismissing his action without permitting him to amend his complaint to add Equal Pay Act and state law tort claims. Finding no error, we affirm.

We conduct a de novo review of the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (6). *Etape v. Chertoff,*497 F.3d 379, 382 (4th Cir.2007). We may affirm a district court’s judgment on any ground supported by the record. *Suter v. United States,*441 F.3d 306, 310 (4th Cir.2006). After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix and supplemental joint appendix, we affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Howard v. U.S. Army,*No. 1:06-cv-00783-GBL (E.D.Va. Apr. 27, 2007).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
(January 8, 1986)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Margaret Boak, Respondent, v O’Leary Funeral Home et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

— By decision dated October 10, 1985 and order entered December 2, 1985, the motion to dismiss the appeal was granted by default. Motion by appellants granted, without costs, and order entered December 2, 1985 vacated and decision dated October 10, 1985 rescinded. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs, on the ground that the decision sought to be appealed is interlocutory. It is noted that the Board’s nonfinal decision may be reviewed upon the appeal from the final determination *(Matter of Huffman v Lake City Contr. Corp.,*74 AD2d 989). Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### E. W. Burt and Company, Incorporated, *vs.*Coes and Young Company.

Suffolk.

March 18, 1912.

May 24, 1912.

Present: Rugg, C. J., Morton, Braley, Sheldon, & DeCourcy, JJ.

*Equity Pleading and Practice,*Appeal.

On an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill in equity after overruling the plaintiff’s exceptions to a master’s report, the evidence on which the master’s findings were based was not before this court and the only question was whether the decree lawfully could be entered upon the facts found and stated in the report of the master and the memorandum of the trial judge. It being manifest .that such was the case, the decree was affirmed.

DeCourcy, J.

This is a bill in equity brought to restrain the defendant from using the trade-name “Flexible Arch,” and from advertising its shoes by means of a pictorial representation of a shoe bent at the arch thereof. The case was referred to a master and subsequently was heard on the plaintiff’s exceptions to the master’s report, by a single justice of this court.* The exceptions were overruled, the master’s report confirmed, and a final decree was entered dismissing the bill.

The plaintiff’s appeal from the decree does not bring the evidence before us, and we cannot consider the exceptions based on the contention that the master’s findings are not warranted by the evidence. The only question before us is whether the decree lawfully could be entered upon the facts found and stated in the report of the master and the memorandum of the single justice; and manifestly it could. Without reciting the facts at length, it was found that the defendants acted in good faith in advertising their shoes as “ Coes & Young’s 7.00 Flexible Arch-Support Shoes,” *135and that the purchasing public were not likely to be, and in fact were not deceived into buying them for the plaintiff’s “Flex-Arch” shoes. The plaintiff proved no exclusive right to make, advertise and sell shoes with a flexible shank or arch for the prevention and cure of flat foot, or to use pictorial illustrations of a shoe bent at the arch to show its flexibility; and no infringement of trade-mark rights or unfair competition was established.

*E. N. Curtis,*for the plaintiff.

*G. H. Maxwell,*for the defendant, was not called upon.

*Decree affirmed with costs.*

*

*Morton,*J.
EXHIBIT 21



SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF CAREMARK RX, INC. (1)



|                                  |  |                                                        |  |                                                             
|--------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Legal Name                        |  | State or Jurisdiction of Incorporation
or Organization |  | Also Doing Business As                                      
|                                  |  |                                                       
|Caremark International Inc.       |  | Delaware                                               |  | N/A                                                         
|                                  |  |                                                       
|Caremark Inc.                     |  | California                                             |  | Caremark Prescription Services Caremark Therapeutic
Services
|                                  |  |                                                       
|Caremark Receivables, LLC         |  | Delaware                                               |  | N/A                                                         
|                                  |  |                                                       
|CaremarkPCS                       |  | Delaware                                               |  | AdvancePCS                                                  
|                                  |  |                                                       
|AdvancePCS Holding Corporation    |  | Delaware                                               |  | N/A                                                         
|                                  |  |                                                       
|AdvancePCS Health Systems, L.L.C. |  | Delaware                                               |  | N/A                                                         
|                                  |  |                                                       
|ADVP Consolidation, L.L.C.        |  | Delaware                                               |  | N/A                                                         
|                                  |  |                                                       
|AdvancePCS Health, L.P.           |  | Delaware                                               |  | Caremark                                                    

---

|(1) | Certain subsidiaries of Caremark Rx, Inc. have been omitted from the above listing pursuant to Item 601(b)(ii) of Regulation S-K. These subsidiaries would, if considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, not constitute a significant subsidiary as this term is defined by the SEC.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 23 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk August 23 , 2019

157812 ( 78 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 157812

v COA: 334024

Wa yne CC: 15

- 010216

- FC

ARTHUR LAROME JEMISON

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time

for filing his brief is GRANTED. The brief submitted on August 16 , 2019 , is accepted as

timely filed

.
NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 21 8

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

CATARINO BRISENO JR

, A ppellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 1 56 th District Court

of Bee County, Texas.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Counsel for a ppellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal

. Appellant signed both

the motion and an affidavit

. We find the motion and affidavit together meet the

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and attorney

must sign a written motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Without

passing on the merits of the case, we GRANT the motion to dismiss and DISM I SS the2 appeal.

Having dismissed the appeal at appella nt’s request, no motion for rehearing will

be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

GREGORY T. PERKES

Justice

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

17th day of September, 2020.
#### James Soward, Respondent, v Town of Ramapo, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Town of Ramapo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Wood, J.), entered July 17, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and the codefendants’ cross claims against it.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A material issue of fact exists as to responsibility for maintenance of the road on which plaintiff’s accident took place and the extent to which the road’s maintenance contributed to the accident. Since a triable issue of fact exists, summary judgment was properly denied *(see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 NY2d 395; CPLR 3212 [b]). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Jiminez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dubin, J.), rendered February 24, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.

*833In its charge to the jury, the court said that alibi testimony is a strong defense “if you believe it”. This language could have misled the jury into thinking that it must have been convinced of the alibi’s truth before the alibi could serve as a basis for acquittal. “[W]hile not erroneous on its face * * * [it] may have conveyed to the jury, not accustomed to digesting rules of law”, that the defendant had some burden of proving his alibi *(People v Victor,*62 NY2d 374, 378; *People v Negroni,*109 AD2d 756). In addition, the court failed to explicitly charge, despite defendant’s request to do so, that the People have the burden of disproving an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v Victor, supra,*p 378). As with the virtually identical alibi charge in *People v Negroni (supra),*the charge did not adequately convey the correct burden to the jury.

Since only a single witness’ identification linked defendant to the crime and several witnesses testified to an alibi for defendant, we cannot deem this error harmless *(People v Lee,*110 AD2d 913; *People v Chestnut,*99 AD2d 515).

Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Communications & Power Industries
Holding Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September
27, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Joel Littman, Chief Financial Officer 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:

      (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/ Joel Littman


Joel Littman
Chief Financial Officer
December 12, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Pathway to Independence Applications (K99).
    Date: August 10, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ashley Fortress, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 451-2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e8899b80848d91c68e879a9c9a8d9b9ba8868180c68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2c3d1cacec7db8cc4cdd0d6d0c7d1d1e2cccbca8cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15448 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Bruce Gaynor, Petitioner, v Thomas J. Hroncich, as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Control of the Town of Islip, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Control of the Town of Islip, dated January 31, 1984, which, after a hearing, found petitioner incapable of performing the duties of his position of employment and dismissed him therefrom.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support respondent’s findings. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.