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


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           454,540
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 456,813
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   456,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,222
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         13,500
<OTHER-SE>                                       455,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     456,813
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 18,708
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 14,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,413
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,023)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,436
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.01)



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-BR Date: December 22, 2015

Case Title: Gessele et al v Jack in the Box, Inc. 

Presiding Judge: Anna J. Brown Courtroom Deputy: Bonnie Boyer

Tele: (503) 326-8053

e-mail: Bonnie_Boyer@ord.uscourts.gov

DOCKET ENTRY: Order

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion (#27) for Partial Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs’ Motion

(#32) for Partial Summary Judgment (Statute of Limitations) and to Establish Tolling for FLSA 

Collective Members; and Plaintiffs' Motion (#33) for Partial Summary Judgment on Jack in the Box's 8th

(Private Right Of Action), 9th (Due Process) and 12th (Preemption) Affirmative Defenses and makes the

following rulings:

The Court DENIES as premature the portion of Defendant's Motion (#27) for Partial Summary Judgment

and Plaintiffs’ Motion (#32) for Partial Summary Judgment relating to whether the California putative

class members are subject to binding settlements entered into in Frederick et al v. Jack-In-The-Box, Inc.

et al, California Superior Court (Riverside County) Case No. RIC501044 and Olvera et al v. Jack in the

Box Inc. et al, California Superior Court (San Diego County) Case No. 37-2013-00072707-CU-OE-CTL. 

The Court grants the parties leave to raise anew the issue of these settlements after the parties have

conducted limited, concise, targeted discovery related to the settlements and the claims asserted in those

actions such that a clear record can me made regarding their effect and after the Court has issued an

Opinion and Order on the portions of the parties' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment remaining after

this Order.

The Court DENIES as premature the portion of Defendant's Motion (#27) for Partial Summary Judgment

and Plaintiffs’ Motion (#32) for Partial Summary Judgment relating to Defendant's status as a joint

employer. The Court grants the parties leave to raise anew the issue of these settlements after the parties

have conducted limited, concise, targeted discovery related to Defendant's status as a joint employer and

after the Court has issued an Opinion and Order on the portions of the parties' Motions for Partial

Summary Judgment remaining after this Order. 

The Court DENIES as premature the portion of Plaintiffs' Motion (#33) for Partial Summary Judgment as

to Defendant's Ninth Affirmative Defense. It is unclear on this record whether Plaintiff intends to assert

the $200 statutory penalty applies to each pay period. In addition, it is not certain that Plaintiffs will

succeed on any underlying claims that would entitle them to the statutory penalty at issue. If Plaintiffs

succeed on underlying claims that would entitle them to the statutory penalty at issue and if Plaintiffs

assert the $200 statutory penalty applies to each pay period, Plaintiffs may raise anew the issue of

Defendant's Ninth Affirmative Defense in due course.

The Court will set oral argument on the remaining issues in the parties' pending Motions.

Case 3:14-cv-01092-BR Document 62 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Gary William HALLFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hillary Rodham CLINTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-17547.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed July 20, 2011.

Gary William Hallford, Represa, CA, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*160ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this order replaces the memorandum disposition filed on May 17, 2011.

With this change, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gary William Hallford appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of his action seeking a Writ of Prohibition against the Secretary of State to prevent her from enforcing an age requirement in hiring employees for the United Nations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order dismissing the case, filed on November 1, 2010.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  Exhibit 10(b)    
    


 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  


        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 811-8537)
of our report dated April 11, 2008, relating to the statutory financial statements and financial statement schedules of Protective Life and Annuity Insurance Company. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 of our report dated April 24, 2008, relating to the financial statements of The Variable Annuity Account A of
Protective Life. 




  


PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP

Birmingham, Alabama

November 25, 2008 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10(b)
<TABLE>

<S>              <C>                 <C>            <C>       <C>    <C>    <C>



                                                                                                           Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

We hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, to the best of our
knowledge, complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Unified Financial Services, Inc.

                                                          /s/ John S. Penn
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------
                                                          John S. Penn
                                                          President and Chief Executive Officer



                                                          /s/ Thomas G. Napurano
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------
                                                          Thomas G. Napurano
                                                          Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2003

         This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 National Peanut Research Laboratory: Dawson, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Technology
                        Patents & Licenses
                                    Technology Transfer and CRADAs
                                    NPRL SoftwareSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Dawson, Georgia National Peanut Research Laboratory People & Locations







Jessica C Page
                        National Peanut Research Laboratory

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician
                        Phone: (229) 995-7400
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company *v.*Patterson.

February 12, 1915.

Action for damages. Before Judge Patterson. Fannin superior court. December 5, 1913.

*D. W. Blair, William Butt, G. H. Griffin,*and *Tyc, Feeples & Jordan,*for plaintiff in error.

Per Curiam.

1. The portions of the charge complained of do not constitute reversible error for any of the reasons assigned in the 'grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. The evidence supported the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoncivr, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Science Research: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Plant Science Research People & Locations







Amy  McNamara

(Bownds)
                        Plant Science Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (612) 624-0763
                        
                        
                        Fax: (612) 301-2130(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
(7 App. Div. 144)

#### PEOPLE ex rel. CASSIDY v. ROOSEVELT et al., Police Com’rs.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 29, 1896.)

Policemen-'—Removal—Hearing.

A policeman who was discharged did not have a hearing before one or more of the commissioners, as required by law, where he was brought before one of the commissioners, and testimony taken, but, before the . board acted on the case, the term of such commissioner expired, and the other commissioners in office were removed by the mayor, and the case was disposed of by their successors on the evidence so taken.

Certiorari by Joseph Cassidy to review the determination of Theodore Roosevelt and others, composing the board of police commissioners of the city of New York, dismissing relator from the police force. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and WILLIAMS, PATTERSON,. O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Louis J. Grant, for relator.

Theodore Connoly, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We do not think that the relator had a trial before one or more of the commissioners, as required by the rules. There was a hearing, at which testimony was taken, before Commissioner Martin, who was then a police commissioner. Before that was acted upon by the board, Commissioner Martin’s term expired, and the other commissioners in office at that time were removed by the mayor, and the respondents were appointed in- place of the retiring and removed commissioners. It seems to us quite clear that, with the retirement or removal of the commissioners in office at the time of the hearing, the proceeding came to an end, and a . new trial or hearing before the new commissioners was necessary. There is nothing to show that the commissioner before whom the testimony was taken made a report to his associates. He certainly could not have made a report to the respondents, as they were not in office when the trial took place; and Commissioner Martin, before whom the trial was had, was not in office when the respondents acted, and dismissed the relator.

We think, for this reason, that the proceedings should be reversed, and the relator reinstated, with $50 costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Floyd Alston, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 836]

The case is held, the decision is reserved, the motion to relieve counsel of assignment is granted and new counsel is to be assigned. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon a guilty plea of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 *[4]),*and was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of eight years and five years postrelease supervision. Defendant’s assigned appellate counsel has moved to be relieved of the assignment pursuant to *People v Crawford*(71 AD2d 38 [1979]). However, upon our review of the record we conclude that a nonfrivolous issue exists as to whether defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was valid. Therefore, we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to brief this issue, as well as any other issues that counsel’s review of the record may disclose. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Francis A. Affronti, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree). Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1267

___________________________

Michael Hansler

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

 ____________

 Submitted: October 31, 2019

Filed: November 5, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansasinmate Michael Hansler appealsthe November 13, 2018, Order ofthe

district court1

dismissing his claims against numerous Arkansas correctional officials

1The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States DistrictJudge for the Western

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

BarryA. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
for violating hisrights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-1 et seq. Hansler

argues the district court erred in ruling that his claims for prospective injunctive

relief became moot when he was transferred to another correctional facility, and in

dismissing his constitutional and RLUIPA claims on the ground that defendants’

actions had not placed a substantial burden of his ability to practice the Wiccan

religion. After careful review, we affirm the district court’s rulings on these issues

for the reasons stated in the Order being appealed. Hansler’s additional contention

that the district court denied him due process by failing to adopt certain

recommendations in a July 20, 2017, Report and Recommendation of the magistrate

judge is without merit.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41043 Summary Calendar

MARK K. HEDRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-CV-583

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mark K. Hedrick appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Social Security Commissioner denying disability benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He challenges that Commissioner’s determination that Hedrick had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary work of an unskilled or semi-skilled nature, subject to no climbing, stooping, crawling, or kneeling. He specificallyNo. 97-41043 -2- argues that he was denied due process because the record was not complete, the Appeals Council erred in failing to reopen the proceedings, the administrative law judge (ALJ) impermissibly considered Hedrick’s apparent lack of discomfort during the hearing in reaching its determination, the treating physicians’ opinions were not given their proper weight, his earnings represented failed work attempts or constituted substantial gainful activity, and the ALJ erred in offering an incomplete hypothetical question to the vocational expert. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. See Hedrick v. Callahan , C-96-CV-583 (S.D. Tex. July 24, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                              EXHIBIT 10.11

		      AMENDMENT TO LEASE FOR PREMISES OF
			    HART SCIENTIFIC, INC.


HART SCIENTIFIC
----------


							      December 8, 1995





Mr. Steven A. Barnes
P.O. Box 245
West Jordan, Utah  84084

Dear Steve:

     Our original lease rate on the new building per our lease dated August 
23, 1995 is $11,333 per month.  Based upon the fact that you have made some 
changes to the building including about $35,000 in heating and cooling 
equipment for the lab, we agree to a final rent on the new building of 
$13,000 per month.

     All other terms and conditions of the lease will remain the same.  We do 
not agree to cover any additional costs except those covered by $13,000 per 
month rent.

     This letter shall serve as an addendum to the lease.  If you accept 
these terms and conditions, please sign this letter as owner and landlord.

     Please return a copy to me.

Sincerely,

HART SCIENTIFIC                         STEVEN A. BARNES


By   /s/ JAMES TRIPLETT                 By /S/ STEVEN BARNES
----------------------------            ------------------------------
  Chief Executive Officer                 Owner and Landlord

Date:   December 8, 1995                Date:  December 8, 1995
     ----------------------                  -------------------------
							     
		    -----------------------------------
		   220 North 1300 West     P.O. Box 435
		     Pleasant Grove, Utah  84062-0435
Page 9
<PAGE>