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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,927
<SECURITIES>                                    13,527
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,212    
<INVENTORY>                                      4,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,063
<PP&E>                                          62,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,713     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,173
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,988
<SALES>                                        105,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,891
<CGS>                                           48,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,680)     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   747
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 262  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (999)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (425)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (574)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (574)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</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
 Genetic Improvement for Fruits & Vegetables Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Genetic Improvement for Fruits & Vegetables Laboratory People & Locations







Kristia  Adams
                        Genetic Improvement for Fruits & Vegetables Laboratory

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (609) 726-1590
                         ext. 4447
                        
                        Fax: (609) 726-1593(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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ANDREA JENKINS-BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. 03:14-CV-01610-ST

v.

LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS ORDER

SERVICING, LLC,

Defendant. 

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings & Recommendation (#55) on July 29, 2015,

in which she recommends the Court deny Defendant's summary judgment motion. Defendant

has timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the

Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th

1 - ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01610-HZ Document 67 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 2
Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Defendant's objections and conclude there is no basis to

modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the

record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [55], and

therefore, Defendant's summary judgment motion [31] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2015. 

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01610-HZ Document 67 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Micaiah Allen, Petitioner, v Harold D. Graham, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 896]

Proceeding pursuant to CPBR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.], entered November 17, 2011) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier II hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Free v Coombe,*234 AD2d 996 [1996]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1299
RALPH E. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-95-51-5) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. David Marcellus Frazier, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; William David Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order affirming the Secretary's denial of Social Security benefits. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that reliefbe denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis . 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.

DISMISSED
##### 



Land OLakes, Inc.
Restated Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws
 As Amended, February 2007
 ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
 ARTICLE I
  ARTICLE II
          1




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
  ARTICLE IV
        2




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
  ARTICLE VI
  ARTICLE VII
  3




---



##### 



BY-LAWS
 ARTICLE I
NAME AND LOCATION
 Section 1. Name.
 Section 2. Location of Office.
 ARTICLE II
PURPOSES
  ARTICLE III
MEMBERSHIP
 Section 1
 Class A.
 Class B.
 Class C.
 4




---



##### 



Class D.
 Section 2. Voting.
    Section 3. Termination of Members. 5
        Section 4. Affiliation of Members.
 ARTICLE IV  REGIONS
 Section 1 Regions.
 Section 2. Assignment of Members to Regions. 6
        Section 3. Representation Committee.
 Section 4. Region Councils.
 ARTICLE V
MEETINGS OF MEMBERS
 Section 1. Annual Meeting of Members.
 7




---



##### 



Section 2. Special Meetings of Members.
 Section 3. Notice of Meetings.
 Section 4. Meetings of Members within Regions.
 Section 5. Quorum.
 Section 6. Election of Directors.
 ARTICLE VI
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Section 1. Number.
 8




---



##### 



Section 2. Term of Office.
  Section 3. Qualifications.
      Section 4. Apportionment of Directors.
 9




---



##### 



Section 5. Nomination of Directors.
 Section 6. Vacancies
 Section 7. Removal of Directors
 Section 8. Meetings.
   Section 9. Quorum.
 10




---



##### 



Section 10. Powers and Duties.
 Section 11. Annual Audit.
 Section 12. Compensation.
 Section 13 Executive Committee.
 ARTICLE VII
OFFICERS
 Section 1. Officers.
 Section 2. Duties of Chairman.
 Section 3. Duties of Vice Chairmen.
 11




---



##### 



Section 4. Duties of Secretary.
 Section 5. Duties of Treasurer.
 Section 6. President and Vice Presidents.
 Section 7. Duties of President.
  Section 8. Compensation of Personnel.
 12




---



##### 



Section 9. Removal.
 ARTICLE VIII
METHOD OF OPERATION
 Section 1.
 Section 2.
  .
   13




---



##### 



14




---



##### 



15




---



##### 



Section 3. 16
        ARTICLE IX
MISCELLANEOUS
 Section 1. Business with Non-Members.
 Section 2. Lien.
 Section 3. Transfer of Stock.
 Section 4. Indemnification of Directors, Officers, and Employees.
  17




---



##### 



ARTICLE X
DISSOLUTION
 Section 1.
 ARTICLE XI
FISCAL YEAR
  18
#### ASHLEY v. ASHLEY.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Action by Sabia M. Ashley against Harford Ashley.

No opinion. The counsel fee is reduced to $100, and defendant is allowed 20 days after the service of the order to pay the same. If not then paid, the answer is stricken out. Order appealed from modified accordingly. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nick Zarbhanelian, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 164]

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered June 30, 2009, as amended August 18, 2009, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of two to six years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s summary denial of defendant’s motion to suppress statements was proper. Although there was neither a hearing nor a trial, the record is sufficiently clear that the only statement made by defendant was his name. An arrestee’s name is the “quintessential routine booking question” *(People v McCloud,*50 AD3d 379, 380 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 738 [2008]), and this pedigree information was not subject to suppression *(see People v Rodney,*85 NY2d 289, 293 [1995]). Moreover, defendant’s name was not incriminating under the circumstances of this case, and the People would have had no reason to use defendant’s acknowledgment of his name against him for any purpose.

In any event, it would be an exercise in futility for this Court to order a suppression hearing. At such a hearing the People would simply reiterate their present position that the only statement was defendant’s name.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00420-CV

KASEY HOLDRIDGE; ROBERT A.

LYONS, P.A.; ROBERT A. LYONS, M.D.;

AND CLEARVIEW SURGERY CENTER,

INC., Appellants

V.

WALLACE RYNE, O.D., P.C.; AND 

WALLACE “WALLY” RYNE, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 67th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (067-333004-22)

July 18, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part. We therefore

• affirm the declaratory judgments interpreting the Holdridge Agreement;

• reverse the breach of fiduciary duty judgments and corresponding awards of 

compensatory and exemplary damages entered against Robert A. Lyons, P.A.

and render judgment that Wallace Ryne, O.D., P.C. take nothing on those

claims;
• reverse the breach of contract judgment entered against Robert A. Lyons, P.A.

and render judgment that Wallace Ryne, O.D., P.C. take nothing on that claim;

• reverse the tortious interference judgments and corresponding awards of 

compensatory and exemplary damages entered against Kasey Holdridge and 

render judgment that Wallace Ryne, O.D., P.C. take nothing on those claims;

• reverse the trial court’s order of dissolution; and

• affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. 

It is further ordered that each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
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 Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research People & Locations







Dustin  Golembiewski
                        Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (509) 335-8174
                        
                        
                        Fax: (509) 335-6654(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
#### Theresa Ferraro et al., Individually and Formerly Doing Business as Michael's House of Steaks, Respondents-Appellants, v United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellant-Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs. Memorandum: Special Term did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant an unconditional order of preclusion. Thus, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

The cross motion for a protective order was properly denied since defendant failed to meet its burden of proving that the information sought by plaintiffs is privileged *(see, Fonda v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*99 AD2d 680; *Hawley v Travelers Indem. Co.,*90 AD2d 684). Defendant’s affidavit opposing discovery contains conclusory and hearsay statements and fails to state facts showing that it had made a decision to reject the claim either before it hired an attorney to investigate the fire or at any time before it notified plaintiffs of the rejection. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—preclusion.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
#### Craig Latwain CHESTNUT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angelina L. BROWN, DHO; Donovan Green; James Tollison, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Correction Institution Turbeville Correction Institution, Defendant.

No. 11-6676.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 30, 2011.

Craig Latwain Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Arlene Thomas, Thompson *&*Henry, PA, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Craig Latwain Chestnut appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and conclude there is no reversible error. Accordingly, we af*678firm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Chestnut v. Brown,*No. 3:10-cv-01784-RMG, 2011 WL 1543301 (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2011). 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.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1442 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1442

       To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 7, 1997

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new item:

      

``    9902.32.20     2-Amino-5-                                                                                 
                      Nitrothiazole                                                                             
                      (CAS No. 121-66-                                                                          
                      4) (provided for                                                                          
                      in subheading                                                                             
                      2934.10.90.00)..  Free              No change        No change        On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/2000            
                                                                                                              ''

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry J. White, Jr., 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.







Dated:November 10, 2010/s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.Harry J. White, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### Adams *v.*Mathews.

February 20, 1915.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Meadow. Elbert superior court. September 9, 1913.

*Z. B. Rogers*and *Cobb & Bnvin,*for plaintiff.

*George C. Grogan,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

This case falls within the principles announced in *Lyons*v. *Bass,*108 *Ga.*573, and is controlled by the rulings therein made.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*