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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BRUNSWICK
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  AMOUNTS ARE ROUNDED TO THOUSANDS (EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE
AMOUNTS).
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             352
<SECURITIES>                                     6,607
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                        46
<INVENTORY>                                      3,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,780
<PP&E>                                           8,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,715
<OTHER-SE>                                         (5)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,216
<SALES>                                         30,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,510
<CGS>                                           22,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (530)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 328
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,983
<INCOME-TAX>                                       707
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,275
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,275
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SHAWN HOWARD BANKS,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 2:16-cv-00284-TC

v. ORDER

UMATILLA COUNTY JAIL, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (#78), and the 

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

neither party filed objections, I reviewed the legal principles de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 

840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate 

Judge Coffin’s Findings and Recommendation (#78) is adopted. Defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment (# 62, 65) are GRANTED. Claims 1 and 2 are dismissed with prejudice. The 

Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim 3 and that claim is dismissed 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2018.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane ________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge
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
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Fact Sheetsheadline bar Melanoplinae subfamily
               Gomphocerinae subfamily
               Oedipodinae subfamily
               Romaleidae subfamily - Tribe Brachystolini
               Tettigoniidae subfamily - Decticinae subfamily
               Subfamilies
               Scientific Names
               Common Names
               pdfs
               FS Alpine


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
#### Beuerlein v. Hodges.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.*

June 20, 1890.)

Appeal—From Justice op the Peace—Time of Taking.

Code Civil Proe. N. Y. § 8140, provides that a justice of the peace must keep a docket-book in which he must enter the judgment, and section 3046 provides that an appeal must be taken within 20 days after the entry of judgment in the justice’s docket. *Held,*that the time for taking an appeal from the judgment of a justice is to be reckoned from the entry of the judgment in his docket-book, and not from the entry in his minutes.

Appeal from Livingston county court.

Action by Fred Beuerlein against Benjamin F. Hodges. From an order dismissing defendant’s appeal from a judgment of the justice’s court, on the ground that it was not taken in time, defendant appeals.

Argued before Dwight, P. J., and Macomber and Corlett, JJ.

*J. M. Hastings,*for appellant. *J. F. O'Connor,*for respondent.

Dwight, P. J.

We are at a loss to know upon what ground the order appealed from was made. The order itself recites that it appeared from the return of the justice, and by the oral stipulation of the parties in open court, that the justice’s judgment was rendered and entered in his minutes on the *50628th day of September, but was not entered in the docket-book of the justice until the 28th day of October, and that the notice of appeal therefrom was served on the last-mentioned day. Section 3140 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “a justice of the peace must keep a docket-book in which he must enter,” among other things relating to “every action or special proceeding commenced before him,” “(11) the judgment or Anal order, and the time of entering it.” And section 3046 provides that “an appeal must be taken within twenty days after the entry of the judgment in the justice’s docket.” Here seems to be no room for construction. It would be quibbling to attempt to distinguish between “docket” and “docket-book,” and the entry in the minutes of the justice was not an entry in the docket. The minutes of the justice are not recognized by the statute. They are mere memoranda, made by the justice for his own convenience and as an aid to his memory. The docket-book is a record prescribed by the statute for the express purpose, among other things, of receiving the entry of the judgment. It is a public record because, by section 3141, the justice is required to keep it open, during the hours when a sheriff’s office must be kept open, “for search and examination by any person, upon his reasonable request.” One purpose served by this provision is to enable any party against whom a judgment has been rendered, and who may desire to appeal, to ascertain when the judgment was entered, and when, accordingly, his time to appeal will expire. There seems to us no room for doubt that this appeal, taken within 20 days after the entry of the judgment in the docket-book, was taken in time. The order appealed from should be reversed. Order of county court reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Antares Pharma, Inc.**

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

 

 

 

|                      |   | State or Other Jurisdiction |
|---------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
| Name                      |   | of Formation                |
|                      |   |                        |
| Antares Pharma AG         |   | Switzerland                 |
| Antares Pharma IPL AG     |   | Switzerland                 |
| Permatec NV               |   | Netherlands, Antilles       |
| Antares Pharma UK Limited |   | United Kingdom              |
|                      |   |                        |
|                      |   |                        |
|                      |   |                        |
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                      State or Jurisdiction
                                                           % of Voting Securities         Under the Law of
Name                                                                Owned                 Which Organized
<S>                                                                 <C>                   <C>
Subsidiaries of National Processing, Inc.

National Processing Company,  LLC                                    100%                   Ohio
NPC International S.A. de C.V.                                      99.6%                   Mexico
NTA, Inc.                                                            100%                   Washington
Financial Processing Company, LLC                                    100%                   Ohio
Caribbean Data Services, Ltd.                                        100%                   Delaware
Northwest Traffic Associates, Inc.                                   100%                   Washington
JBH Travel Audit Inc.                                                100%                   Colorado
NPC International (Barbados) Holdings Limited                        100%                   Barbados
NPC International (Barbados) Limited                                 100%                   Barbados
NPC International (Jamaica) Limited                                  100%                   Jamaica
NPC International (Dominican Republic) S.A.                          100%                   Dominican Republic
National Processing Company International (Fiji) Limited             100%                   Fiji
National Processing Services, Incorporated                           100%                   Ohio
</TABLE>
----

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) 

In connection with the Annual Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a NewJersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10K for the fiscal year ended June30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),I, Martin S. Smiley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that tohis knowledge: 

1.

 The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

2. 

The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 /s/ Martin S. Smiley                 Martin S. Smiley Chief Financial Officer September 29, 2008

 

 

----
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

30203

29-OCT-2013

10:32 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FLOWERS
INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE TWENTY-SEVEN WEEKS
ENDED JANUARY 3, 1998 AND THE FLOWERS INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET AT JANUARY 3, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                           3,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    105,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               252,889
<PP&E>                                         746,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 308,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 899,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          232,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,398
<OTHER-SE>                                     293,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   899,381
<SALES>                                        784,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               786,539
<CGS>                                          418,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  761,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,632
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       (9,888)
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                  EXHIBIT 11.0
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



                                                                THREE MONTHS
                                                                    ENDED       NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                SEPTEMBER 30,     SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                               ---------------  -----------------
                                                                2000     1999     2000     1999
                                                               -------  ------  -------- --------
                                                             (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<S>                                                            <C>      <C>     <C>       <C>
Net (loss)..............................................       $  (42)  $  (74) $  (35)   $  (53)
                                                               ------   ------  ------    ------
Average shares outstanding..............................          285      285     285       285
                                                               ------   ------  ------    ------
Per share amount........................................       $(0.15)  $(0.30) $(0.10)   $(0.17)
                                                               ======   ======  ======    ======

Net (loss)..............................................       $  (42)  $  (74) $  (35)   $  (53)
                                                               ------    -----   -----     -----
Average shares outstanding..............................          285      285     285       285

Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the treasury
  stock method using the average market price or quarter
  end price, whichever is greater.......................           --       --      --        --
                                                               ------   ------  ------    ------
Total shares outstanding................................          285      285     285       285

Per share amount........................................       $(0.15)  $(0.30) $(0.10)   $(0.17)
                                                               ======   ======  ======    ======

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of Coles Myer Ltd, an Australian company (the registrant), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended July 27, 2003 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |  |  | (Signature)            
|                       |  |  |  | J.E. Fletcher          
|Date December 15, 2003 |  |  |  | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
#### Anaveiva Giraldo, Respondent, v Twins Ambulette Service, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[946 NYS2d 871]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Twins Ambulette Service, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated July 28, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a home care attendant, alleged that on March 13, 2009, as she accompanied a patient in her care on a rear ramp of an ambulette owned by the defendant Twins Ambulette Service, Inc. (hereinafter the appellant), she fell and sustained personal injuries.

“In a trip and fall case, a plaintiffs inability to identify the cause of his or her fall is fatal to his or her cause of action, since, in that instance, the trier of fact would be required to base a finding of proximate cause upon nothing more than speculation” *(Louman v Town of Greenburgh,*60 AD3d 915, 916 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; *see Bernardo v 444 Rte. 111, LLC,*83 AD3d 753 [2011]; *Howe v Flatbush Presbyt. Church,*48 AD3d 419, 420 [2008]; *Jackson v Fenton,*38 AD3d 495 [2007]). All of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the opponent of the motion for summary judgment, and all reasonable inferences must be resolved in her favor *(see Boyd v Rome Realty Leasing Ltd. Partnership,*21 AD3d 920, 921 [2005]; *Mitchell v Fiorini Landscape,*253 AD2d 860, 861 [1998]).

The appellant, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, submitted, among other things, the transcript of the plaintiffs deposition testimony. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the plaintiffs testimony did not establish that she did not know what caused her to fall. A fair reading of her deposition testimony was that she lost her balance, tripped, and fell as a result of the appellant’s driver touch*904ing her right arm or elbow while she was on the ramp with her patient. Indeed, her deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact as to whether and, if so, to what extent her fall was caused by the actions of the appellant’s driver *(see Bernardo v 444 Rte. 111, LLC,*83 AD3d at 754). The deposition testimony of the driver of the ambulette, who testified that he never touched the plaintiff while she was on the rear ramp, only raised an issue of credibility that cannot be determined on a motion for summary judgment *(see Ferrante v American Lung Assn.,*90 NY2d 623, 631 [1997]).

Therefore, since the appellant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, and it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.