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


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,030,641
<SECURITIES>                                 5,659,362
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,364,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                   205,000
<INVENTORY>                                 38,634,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            54,912,050
<PP&E>                                       2,478,287
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,676,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,116,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,275,087
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       179,090
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,662,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,116,685
<SALES>                                     17,461,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,461,964
<CGS>                                       10,986,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,986,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,766,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,693,795
<INCOME-TAX>                                    55,884
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,637,911
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,637,911
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14



</TABLE>
#### Erich Fuchs Enterprises et al., Appellants, v American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc. et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 748] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered March 24, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion “resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff [s’] claim” *(Fortis Fin. Servs. v Fimat Futures USA,*290 AD2d 383, 383 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “The court was not required to accept at face value every conclusory, patently unsupportable assertion of fact found in the complaint, but could consider documentary evidence, proved or conceded to be authentic” *(West 64th St., LLC v Axis U.S. Ins.,*63 AD3d 471 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *Robinson v Robinson,*303 AD2d 234 [2003]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### Frederick SWANSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. BUTLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-56474.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Frederick Swanson, Represa, CA, pro se.

Beneth A. Browne, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Frederick Swanson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. *791§ 2254 petition challenging the denial of parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, *Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms,*461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

Despite Swanson’s contentions to the contrary, there is some evidence in the record supporting the parole board’s denial of parole. *See Sass,*461 F.3d at 1128-29 (holding that there is no due process violation if there is some evidence in the record that could support disciplinary board’s conclusion). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *Sass,*461 F.3d at 1129.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Carol D. Conti, Respondent, v Town of Constantia, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 747]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (James W. McCarthy, J.), entered March 9, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order denied in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she fell on a road owned and maintained by defendant. Defendant thereafter moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that it had no prior written notice of the alleged defect as required by Town Law § 65-a, and that it was not negligent with respect to plaintiffs contention that there was inadequate lighting. Supreme Court granted the motion insofar as the complaint alleged that there was inadequate lighting but otherwise denied the motion on the ground that defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged defect, as required by Town Law § 65-a. We affirm.

“Pursuant to Town Law § 65-a (1), a town may be liable for a dangerous highway condition if it had either prior written notice or constructive notice of the dangerous condition” *(Horan v Town of Tonawanda,*83 AD3d 1565, 1565 [2011]; *see Moss v Town of Kingsbury,*248 AD2d 797, 797-798 [1998]; *Adam v*
      *1462
      *Town of Oneonta,*217 AD2d 894, 895 [1995]). In support of its motion, defendant established as a matter of law that it had no prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the road, but it failed even to address whether it lacked constructive notice thereof. Thus, defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Town Law § 65-a (1) because it failed to meet its initial burden with respect to the constructive notice prong of the statute *(see*id.; *Horan,*83 AD3d at 1566-1567; *see also Moss,*248 AD2d at 797-798; *Adam,*217 AD2d at 895). “Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” *(Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324, citing *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Further, defendant’s “ ‘reply papers [cannot] serve to supplement [its] initial moving papers inasmuch as it is well established that [t]he function of [reply papers] is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant[ ] and not to permit [it] to introduce new arguments in support of the motion’ ” *(Gross v Hertz Local Edition Corp.,*72 AD3d 1518, 1519 [2010]). Finally, defendant’s contention that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety on the ground that the road was not maintained in a dangerous or defective condition is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us *(see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,*202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2020

No. 04-20-00125-CV

PAY AND SAVE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Roel CANALES,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-16-371

Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Extension of time to file reporter's record is hereby NOTED. Time is extended until May 

15, 2020.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income  Partners  1987-B,  Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,762
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  796,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               809,728
<PP&E>                                         24,511,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (20,931,018)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,390,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          190,865
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,980,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,390,459
<SALES>                                        1,366,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,488,783
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,150,485<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                111,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            111,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   111,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Cour an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this

Court's general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by Local Rules 83.12 through

83.14.

In the Matter of

Beal, et aL. v. City of Chicago, et aL.

Case Number: 04-2039

AN APPEARNCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

(In the space below, enter the name of the par or paries being represented)

The Estate of John Risley

NAME (Type or print)

Audrey L. Brodrick

SIGNATUR (Use electronic signatue if the appearance form is fied electronically)

sf Audrey L. Brodrick

FIRM

Freeborn & Peters LLP

STREET ADDRESS

311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000

CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP

Chicago, Ilinois 60606

ID NUER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUER

6291420 (312) 360-6000

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? (Enter "Y" or "N") N

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? (Enter "Y" or "N") N

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT'S TRIAL BAR? (Enter "Y" or "N") N

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? (Enter "Y" or "N") N

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, USE AN "X" TO DESCRIBE YOUR STATUS IN THIS CASE.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL

Case: 1:04-cv-02039 Document #: 252 Filed: 03/25/09 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3022
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1946

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain drug substance used as an

HIV antiviral drug.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 3, 1998

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain drug substance

used as an HIV antiviral drug.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:
2

•S 1946 IS

‘‘ 9902.33.01 9-[2-[[Bis

[(pivaloyloxy)

methoxy]

phosphinyl]-

methoxy]

ethyl]adenine

(also known as

Adefovir

Dipivoxil) (CAS

No. 142340–99–

6) (provided for in

subheading

2933.59.59) ......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/1999 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felicia Smith, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 776] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered February 23, 2011, convicting her of robbery in the first degree as a hate crime (nine counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second *1041degree as a hate crime (13 counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), assault in the second degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree as a hate crime, and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the plea allocution was factually insufficient to establish the robbery and conspiracy crimes as hate crimes has not been preserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725 [1995]; *People v Scivolette,*80 AD3d 630, 631 [2011]; *People v Elcine,*43 AD3d 1176 [2007]; *People v Swanton,*27 AD3d 591 [2006]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule, which arises when the defendant’s plea recitation of the facts underlying the crime casts significant doubt on the defendant’s guilt *(see People v*Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), is inapplicable in this case. In any event, any alleged defects in the factual allocution do not constitute grounds for setting aside the plea since “there is no suggestion that the plea of guilty was improvident or baseless” *(People v Guerrero,*307 AD2d 935, 936 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Winbush,*199 AD2d 447, 448 [1993]).

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Itronics Inc. (the Company") on Form10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on March 30, 2004 (the "Report") each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.

 

 

 

Date: March 29, 2004                                 /S/JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                                     JohnW. Whitney

                                                     ChiefExecutive Officer

                                                     ChiefFinancial Officer

78
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1983

To amend section 991(a) of title 28, United States Code, to require certain

members of the United States Sentencing Commission to be selected

from among individuals who are victims of a crime of violence.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 24, 1998

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. HELMS, and Mr. FAIRCLOTH)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 991(a) of title 28, United States Code,

to require certain members of the United States Sentencing Commission to be selected from among individuals

who are victims of a crime of violence.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF UNITED STATES SENTENC4 ING COMMISSION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 991(a) of title 28, United

6 States Code, is amended by inserting after ‘‘same political

7 party.’’ the following: ‘‘Of the members who are not Fed8 eral judges, not less than 2 members shall be individuals
2

•S 1983 IS

1 who are victims of a crime of violence (as that term is

2 defined in section 16 of title 18) or, in the case of a homi3 cide, an immediate family member of such a victim.’’.

4 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by this

5 section shall apply with respect to any appointment made

6 on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 7

- 00 458

- C V



### ____________________

ROBERT CALDWELL

, Appellant

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL

DIVISION , Appellee

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. CV03461

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T he trial court signed a fin al judgment on November 9, 2017

. Robert Caldwell

filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a brief. On February 9, 2018 , we notified

the parties that appellant’s brief had not been filed, and we warned the appellant that

his failure to file a brief could result in a dismissal of the appeal for want of

prosecution. On February 27, 2018 , we notified the parties that the appeal would be2

submitted to the Court on March 20, 2018 , without briefs and without oral argument.

See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8.

In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on March 20, 2018

Opinion Delivered M arch 29, 2018

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MICHAEL L. MAYES; 

JONATHAN D.M. MAYES, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

1:14-cv-02042-CL 

ORDER 

STEVEN D. CAMPBELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

PANNER, District Judge: 

On April 7, 2015, Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a 

Findings and Recommendation (#40), and the matter is now before 

this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Plaintiffs have filed Objections (#42) and I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. 28 U.S. C. § 636 (b) ( 1) (C); McDonnell 

Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 

1 - ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-02042-CL Document 43 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 2
(9th Cir. 1981). 

I have given this matter de novo review. I find no error. 

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. All pending motions are 

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~ day of April, 2015. 

OWEN M. PANNER 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

2 - ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-02042-CL Document 43 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 2
Kathryn Tassinari 

Robert Baron 

kathrynt50@comcast.net 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette, Suite 200 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

BRENDA LEE HUDDLESTON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ) 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01660-SB 

ORDER APPROVING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §406(b) 

After considering Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, and counsel for Defendant having 

no objection, Order is hereby granted in the sum of $6,322.11 for attorney fees pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §406(b). The Commissioner shall deduct from this amount an administrative assessment 

under 42 U.S.C. §406(d) and pay Plaintiff's counsel the balance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this ;Jf ay of J..c... , 2017. 

ict Judge/Magistrate 

PRESENTED BY: 

Kathryn Tassinari 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ORDER APPROVING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES UNDER TO 42 U.S.C.§406(b) - 1
#### Katherine E. McCagg, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

The record supports the factual finding of the Court of Claims that the negligence of the driver of the car which struck the claimant’s vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the other contentions raised by the claimant. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR TO DATE PERIOD ENDED JULY 2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Statement
of Operations are reported as herein.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-1999
<CASH>                                           2,613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                       420
<INVENTORY>                                     27,853
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,841
<PP&E>                                          60,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,606)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,834
<BONDS>                                         33,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,213
<SALES>                                         60,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,781<F1>
<CGS>                                           39,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,468)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 971
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,090
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,627
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,463
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
<FN>
<F1>
Revenues are reported net of credits in the Statement of Opeartions
</FN>


</TABLE>