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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  Schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Consolidated  Balance  Sheet at September  30, 1998 and  Consolidated
Statement of  Operations  for the 12 months  ended  September  30, 1998,  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              84
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      262
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (26)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   322
<PP&E>                                          12,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,315)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,675
<BONDS>                                          8,839
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              228
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,539
<SALES>                                          6,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,122
<CGS>                                            6,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    26
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,224)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (816)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    837
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        21
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</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
 Agricultural Systems Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        NPARL
                                    Pest Management Research
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management:Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Agricultural Systems Research People & Locations







Christine  Turek
                        Agricultural Systems Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Aid
                        Phone: (406) 433-2020
                        
                        
                        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
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
 Mandan, North Dakota
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Scott  Jensen
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Worker
                        Phone: (701) 667-3017
                        
                        
                        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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MATTHEW VOGT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT et al., 

Defendants. 

PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: 

3: 14-cv-O 1224-PK 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Matthew Vogt filed this pro se action in forma pauperis against Defendants 

Jefferson County Sheriffs Office et al. on July 31, 2014. Now before the comt are Plaintiffs 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01224-PK Document 51 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 3
duplicative Motions for Default Judgment and Relief (#36, #37), seeking an ent1y of default 

judgment in his favor against separate defendants in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure ("Rule") 55. 1 

"When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to 

plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit 

or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the patty's default." Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Whether to grant a 

judgment by default is within the discretion of the district court. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 

F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). Factors which may be considered by the district comt in 

exercising its discretion to enter default judgment include: 

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of 

plaintiffs substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) 

the sum of money at stake in the action, ( 5) the possibility of a 

dispute concerning material facts, ( 6) whether the default was due to 

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 

Eitel v. 1VfcCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Default judgments are ordinarily 

disfavored. See id. at 14 72. 

Plaintiff argues, without suppo1t, that "[n]o motion or answer was delivered timely" and 

he is therefore entitled to relief. Pl. 's Motion, #36 & #37. However, the record reflects that 

Defendants timely filed their Answer (#34) on June 11, 2015 prior to the June 12, 2015 due date 

(#33). Additionally, Defendants declare that the answer was mailed to Plaintiff at his coiTect 

address and return mail was not received. Deel. of Theresa Franz, #39. Upon analysis of the 

record, Plaintiffs motion is without merit. 

1 Plaintiff improperly moves under Rule 12. 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01224-PK Document 51 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 3
denied. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motions for Default Judgment (#36, #37) are 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated this 17th day of August, 2015. 

Honorable Paul J. Papa 

United States District Judge 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01224-PK Document 51 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of John Zurat et al., Appellants, v Town Board, Town of Stockport, Respondent.

— Kane, J.

By judgment dated May 24, 1982, Special Term annulled respondent’s 1982 assessment of water charges against petitioners in the sum of $5,324. Respondent subsequently issued a water bill for 1985 in the amount of $6,149.22. Thereafter, by order to show cause dated December 31, 1985, petitioners sought to annul this 1985 bill based upon the assertion that the judgment dated May 24, 1982 barred the subsequent assessment of water charges. Special Term denied this motion, noting that the 1982 judgment dealt only with the 1982 water bill and thus did not bar the 1985 charges. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. The record demonstrates that the 1982 judgment concerned only the 1982 bill. Accordingly, petitioners’ remedy was to commence a new proceeding challenging the subsequent bill *(see, People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Socy. v Haring,*286 App Div 676). In such a proceeding, petitioners would, of course, be entitled to rely on the doctrine of stare decisis *(see, id.).*We note, however, that a timely proceeding was apparently not commenced *(see,*CPLR 217; *Renley Dev. Co. v Town Bd. of Town of Kirkwood,*106 AD2d 717).

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of

RANDY PHILIP CAPPS,

Petitioner.

No. 53980-2-II

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

GLASGOW, A.C.J.—Randy Philip Capps seeks relief from personal restraint imposed following 

his 1995 plea of guilty to aggravated first degree murder, a crime he committed when he was 20 years 

old and for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He argues 

that under In re Personal Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wn.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021), his sentence is 

unconstitutional and that he is entitled to be resentenced so that the trial court can take into account his 

youthfulness at the time of his crimes. The State concedes that Capps is entitled to resentencing. 

Accordingly, we grant Capps’s petition and remand his judgment and sentence to the trial court for 

resentencing.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington 

Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

Glasgow, A.C.J.

We concur:

Maxa, J.

Veljacic, J.

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

February 8, 2022
#### In the Matter of Nova Harris, Petitioner, v Michael D. Israel, as President and CEO of the Westchester County Health Care Corporation, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 901]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Westchester County Health Care Corporation dated July 21, 2010, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, finding the petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct and insubordination, and terminated her employment as a certified nursing assistant.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the matter is remitted to Westchester County Health Care Corporation to compute the amount of back pay owed to the petitioner in accordance herewith, the determination is otherwise confirmed, the petition is otherwise denied, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of Westchester County Health Care Corporation finding the petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct and insubordination was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see *300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179 [1978]; *Matter of Paul v*Israel, 90 AD3d 666 [2011]; *Matter of Ruggiero v McGrane,*64 AD3d 783 [2009]). Further, the petitioner’s contention that she was denied a fair hearing due to the alleged bias of the hearing officer is without merit. There is no evidence in the record to support her contention that the hearing officer was biased *(Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv.,*74 NY2d 833, 834 [1989]; *see Matter of Byrnes v Mahon,*72 AD3d 1079, 1079-1080 [2010]). Moreover, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offenses committed by the petitioner as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see *Matter of Rutkunas v Stout,*8 NY3d 897, 898-899 [2007]; *Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 38-39 [2001]; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]; *Matter of Jenkins v Israel,*83 AD3d 1068 [2011]).

Nevertheless, the petitioner correctly contends that she is entitled to back pay for the period she was suspended without pay in excess of 30 days, excluding delay, if any, occasioned by her, and less unemployment insurance benefits received for that *1118period, if any (see Civil Service Law § 75 [3]; *Matter of Prioleau v Murphy,*69 AD3d 943, 944 [2010]; *Matter of Ruggiero v Mc-Grane,*64 AD3d 783 [2009]; *Matter of Butler v County of Dutchess,*3 AD3d 563, 564 [2004]; *Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth.,*190 AD2d 674, 675 [1993]).

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to Westchester County Health Care Corporation for a determination of back pay owed to the petitioner, including the latest date she would be entitled to back pay. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Beckers, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 515]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered February 28, 2011, convicting him of attempted dissemination of indecent material to a minor in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions that his plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent due to the trial court’s failure to advise him, at the time of his plea, that an order of protection would be imposed upon him at sentencing and that he would be required to register as a sex offender *(see People v Williams,*84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; *People v Morrow,*48 AD3d 704, 705 [2008]; *People v*
      *775
      *Dixon,*16 AD3d 517 [2005]). These contentions are, in any event, without merit *(see People v Gravino,*14 NY3d 546, 553 [2010]; *People v Vasquez,*85 AD3d 1068 [2011]; *People v Smith,*85 AD3d 1065 [2011]; *People v Margillo,*69 AD3d 655 [2010]).

The defendant’s contention that the order of protection was improperly issued since the sentencing court failed to specify any reason on the record for issuance of the order *(see*CPL 530.12 [5]) is belied by the record. Further, with respect to the duration of the order of protection, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentencing court complied with CPL 530.12 by 1£fix[ing]” the duration of the order, as required by that statute (CPL 530.12 [5]). Skelos, J.P, Belen, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JANE KELLY,

 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:15-cv-00875-JR

CITY OF EUGENE, a municipality; ORDER

EUGENE POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

OFFICER BARRY RAGER, No. 361; 

OFFICER JOHN RISKO, No. (UNKNOWN),

in their individual capacity,

Defendants.

_____________________________ 

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 89), 

and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I conclude the report is correct.

Judge Russo correctly applied the summary judgment standard by viewing the relevant 

facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in reaching her conclusion. Plaintiff 

argues there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the voicemails are to be considered 
2 –ORDER

protected speech or not, but a simple reading of the Findings and Recommendations reveals there 

is no dispute as to this fact. F&R 8. The defendants, to the benefit of the Plaintiff, did not contest 

the characterization of the voicemails as protected speech. Id. So it is, even abrasive speech is 

protected under the First Amendment. 

Other arguments put forward by Plaintiff’s objections are equally specious. Rarely is it 

effective to charge the other party of misrepresenting facts and laws, and deception (Pl.’s Obj. 1-

2, 4, ECF No. 96). It is clear the individual defendants had probable cause to issue traffic 

citations for illegal window tint at 3% light transmittance where the legal limit is 35% light 

transmittance. Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 815.221(2); 815.222. There is insufficient evidence to show the 

citations were issued with the intent to chill Plaintiff’s speech. F&R 9-10. It also clear there is no 

evidence the traffic citations were issued because of Plaintiff’s disability. F&R 16-18. Plaintiff 

did not meet her burden of showing that the 3% light transmittance is both reasonable and 

necessary to accommodate her disability. F&R 18-21.

There are no objections to Judge Russo’s findings that the individual defendants are 

entitled to qualified immunity, or that summary judgment should be granted for the City on 

plaintiff’s IIED claim.

I adopt the Findings and Recommendation in full (ECF No. 89). Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, ECF No. 64, is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2017.

s/ Michael J. McShane _

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge
#### LESTER et al., Appellants, v. WORDEN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

December 3, 1895.)

Action byMerriman J. Lester and others against Harmon W. Worden and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. MAYHAM, P. J., not sitting.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


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


In connection with Quarterly Report of Waypoint Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
C. Pearson, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/ Charles C. Pearson, Jr.
---------------------------
Charles C. Pearson, Jr.,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


November 13, 2002
#### James J. O’Leary, Respondent-Appellant, v Raymond LeChase, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Cyclops Corporation, Elwin G. Smith Division, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. *(See, mem in O’Leary v Raymond LeChase, Inc.*[appeal No. 1], 125 AD2d 991 [decided herewith]). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Provenzano, J. — indemnification.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 11

                         JD American Workwear, Inc.

                      Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended               Six Months Ended
                                                           August 31                       August 31
                                                 ---------------------------     ---------------------------
                                                     1996            1995            1996            1995
                                                     ----            ----            ----            ----

<S>                                              <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net Loss                                         $  (143,288)    $  (430,436)    $  (363,975)    $  (643,214)
Weighted average common shares outstanding(1)      1,684,056         875,000       1,645,696         873,850
"Cheap" stock issued December 1994 - May 1995                        387,305                         387,305
                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
                                                   1,684,056       1,262,305       1,645,696       1,261,155
                                                 ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
Loss per share(2)                                $     ( .09)    $     ( .34)    $      (.22)    $     ( .51)
                                                 ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
--------------------
<F1>  Excludes "cheap" stock issued from December of 1994 through May of 1995 
      which is viewed as outstanding for all periods presented.

<F2>  There is no difference between primary and fully diluted loss per share 
      for the three and six month periods ended August 31, 1996.

</TABLE>