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

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                     JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     241
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               26
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 5
<INVENTORY>                                                 27
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           360
<PP&E>                                                   1,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                             999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      651
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     3
<OTHER-SE>                                                 349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             1,000
<SALES>                                                     33
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            66
<CGS>                                                       80
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (140)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.04)



</TABLE>
PAGE 1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ZACHARIAH KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:15-cv-0032-SI 

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

On November 25, 2015, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s determination that 

Plaintiff was not disabled and remanded the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. 

Dkt. 15. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed application for attorney’s fees pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. 18.

The EAJA authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in an action 

against the United States, unless the government shows that its position in the underlying 

litigation “was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Although the EAJA creates a 

presumption that fees will be awarded to a prevailing party, Congress did not intend fee shifting 

to be mandatory. Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1995). The decision to deny EAJA 

Case 2:15-cv-00032-SI Document 19 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 –ORDER

attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the court. Id.; Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 

(9th Cir. 2002). A social security claimant is the “prevailing party” following a sentence-four 

remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) either for further administrative proceedings or for the 

payment of benefits. Flores, 49 F.3d at 567-68 (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300 

(1993)). Fee awards under the EAJA are paid to the litigant, and not the litigant’s attorney, 

unless the litigant has assigned his or her rights to counsel to receive the fee award. Astrue v. 

Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596-98 (2010).

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,000. Defendant does not 

oppose Plaintiff’s motion. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and agrees with the parties 

that the EAJA petition is proper and the amount requested is reasonable. 

Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s earlier 

application for attorney’s fees (Dkt. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff is awarded $6,000 for 

attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets 

allowed under the Treasury Offset Program, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 593-94. Because 

Plaintiff has filed with the Court an assignment of EAJA fees to counsel (Dkt. 17 at 6), if 

Plaintiff has no debt subject to the Treasury Offset Program, then Defendant shall cause the 

check to be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney. If Plaintiff 

owes a debt subject to the Treasury Offset Program, then the check for any remaining funds after 

offset of the debt shall be payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00032-SI Document 19 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 2
ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION 

and

MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATION ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATION

• Costs are in support of administrative Costs are in support of administrative 

operations and management of GCMRC. operations and management of GCMRC. Broken down as follows Broken down as follows

– Salary (Chief, Secretary, Budget Analyst) Salary (Chief, Secretary, Budget Analyst)

– Space and Facilities Cost Space and Facilities Cost

– Training and Travel Training and Travel

– Telecommunications Telecommunications

– Vehicle Lease and Maintenance Vehicle Lease and Maintenance

– TOTAL COST OF $663,650 TOTAL COST OF $663,650
Program Planning & Managem

Program Planning & Managem

• Costs are for salary and travel in support 

Costs are for salary and travel in support 

program planning and management in th

program planning and management in th

program areas of Biological, Physical, Cul

program areas of Biological, Physical, Cu

Resources, and Information Technologies

Resources, and Information Technologies

– Total Cost $552,000 Total Cost $552,000
AMWG/TWG AMWG/TWG Participation Participation

• Travel costs to attend AMWG/TWG meeti

Travel costs to attend AMWG/TWG meeti

• Total Cost $17,250 Total Cost $17,250
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DAMEION EDWARD ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendants.

2:16-CV-00312-TC

 

ORDER

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin issued Findings and

Recommendation (#27) on December 27, 2016, in which he

recommended the Court grant Defendants’ Motion (#16) for Summary

Judgment and dismiss this matter with prejudice on the grounds

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and

Plaintiff’s state-law claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment

immunity. 

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation were filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

1 - ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-00312-TC Document 29 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 3
561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court modifies

the Findings and Recommendation as follows:

As noted, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss

this matter with prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies and Plaintiff’s state-law

claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Ninth

Circuit, however, has held dismissals for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies should be without prejudice. See, e.g.,

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 1991)(“Dismissal

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not . . .

jurisdictional[, therefore,] . . . [t]he proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice.”); Armstrong v. Scribner, 350 F.

App’x 186, 186 (9th Cir. 2009)(“The district court properly

determined that Armstrong failed to exhaust administrative

remedies as to his claim concerning access to a computer . . . . 

However, we vacate the judgment with respect to this claim and

remand for dismissal without prejudice.”).

The Ninth Circuit has also held dismissals on the ground of

Eleventh Amendment immunity should be without prejudice. See,

e.g., Genevier v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Svcs,

144 F. App’x 586, 587 (9th Cir. 2005)(“The district court

properly dismissed Genevier's claims against CDSS because, as an

2 - ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-00312-TC Document 29 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 3
arm of the state, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

. . . The claims against CDSS should have been dismissed without

prejudice, however.”). 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this matter without

prejudice.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS as modified Magistrate Judge Coffin’s

Findings and Recommendation (#27). Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES this matter without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2017.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

3 - ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-00312-TC Document 29 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3
Xtf r//B ceu&rof c/trjvjr//Al FILED IN

APPE/2JLS -XV rfUSZ&Vj 7ZXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

DEC 18 2015

" " T^JUZm£fcM£y, /tEZTZTOrfS* Abel Acosta, Clerk

RECEIVED IN

f/?ort /UeJ/M: //-H-MJLW-cJ**TM 0F CR,M,NAL APPEALS

DEC 15 2015

£ASUJM tew/ry 72^rs Ab®i Acosta, Clerk

exZesz4£&ij/7&w& sf&> (S/'xk) days ck &>AuA £-/££a /eTazbr? /*s~ /^^'scrc^kr0!?*Svy

/y^i
VuJae. /cercJex&Zds to werfr/tear&Zvn ef* /e//ctcr> Ser /3/6cr&&i&><stsy /&*&«;'. 0s? *^^z£/*3^v~ o«^

/2d!^&a p&Uc<!&>er a^Als 3&c/a* <dte</urte. /%&>&&&** cevzTe^tA /Wv C^e&Az^<sn^<^&&& ct

/TSSea/zAj ata^i A> /V&& Cy9-u> ~<Aue. c&Se. /sz^/?&£'&c(a*&iA& ez^^U 3/^^^yu7^ei*^>!Ce^^,

jr.

y#<Z£6S 72> &r2//?7j

/because /i/Auirxr ts/?*?'sit&c/'t&y&fj <* /%M?jAe or <&A*r>M sr?*p eya&tsj; <Z/c&//?ee*y £&>&

u C&rkAcc//"eseard as/a/Secure. swa>/ues ZoyOttreAsijc c^atkf <as /zee<&g*?rl

77Ls Afe. e*Ze*i*4>77 &/&#?* £S refUuT^./^sW^/WSt^, c*<&?9y&s&tes-Septets^S'&fe /exztjs A^i&SMr*

Anpe/idi /recet/use, /)e/*du*&r sVese/, /?j&/czs &fe &*s€A&Sr#i Tej&s A^^&t/*/^

Zc/~3
/ex&s/aUs ^sjfaeALd/%?&cA<sej a/)c//*s 6>? &e aA&^a&e^e&^es^rt^ 2%£s <^W<^

J2sifZ#fJT>v72r/&4/~ as* JuS7Z£C£ a*JaaeJdesicy /cLce ^T /&A <*$Jl a/ies/os /O^oe 68. 6

tend/prece&bses o<~ 4//Luna/) error arcan osaftct as a /ay/wesi as/iiWj, yd^C: 7o C&Tnrt&y £<J6>07. ess" &?

Zsb &£ferna/6oe. tutotcar Counsel to /*ee/i^as>e(f>rware, ofapecbrizt x$rc&/-.

c^UAes&Cre.; jOfemJes s&teideset/A&ZtZumtrArayJ Zfo OwrZT Cpsa/if Zfes />?<?&&, ex^onS S7?t

ae&J&sicy£fJ%La A^ /°J)/2 &a& /zAsu*n,2-9$ arAAc^ <A.e. Z% UwAcAjcys a*»/A*

StAcAtAnerA0ra4Aj y£s asiy trAter 0f<?ZeKS Avc^f re&/^5ateaAf £>r &/L<A Z%e OvtrA<A&TM

\ersn#ratcc&ss

f r"~ »-*""- -y — £g- '- -

'r^uies3#fo /r/V3S'/f

/3eaAjww Z*

yrztrtgs

2<S3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                      LIST OF REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES

Parent Corporation: Educational Medical, Inc.

1.   Andon Colleges, Inc. d/b/a/ Andon College, Andon College at Modesto

2.   California Academy of Merchandising, Art and Design, Inc. f/k/a CAMAD
     Acquisition Corp. d/b/a California Academy of Fashion Merchandising, Art
     and Design

3.   DBS Acquisition Corp. f/k/a A-DBS Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Dominion
     Business School.

4.   DEST Education Corporation d/b/a Andon College, Andon College at Stockton,
     (DEST is 100% owned by Andon Colleges, Inc.)

5.   HBC Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Hagerstown Business College

6.   ICM Acquisition Corp. d/b/a ICM School of Business

7.   Maric Learning Systems, Inc. d/b/a Maric College of Medical Careers

8.   MTSX Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Modern Technology School of X-Ray

9.   Nebraska Acquisition Corp. d/b/a (1) Lincoln School of Commerce and (2)
     Nebraska School of Business

10.  OIOPT Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Ohio Institute of Photography and Technology

11.  Palo Vista College of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences, Inc. d/b/a Maric
     College of Medical Careers

12.  SACMD Acquisition Corp. d/b/a (1) Career Centers of Texas - El Paso and
     (2) San Antonio College of Medical and Dental Assistants

13.  Scottsdale Educational Center for Allied Health Careers, Inc. d/b/a Long
     Medical Institute
#### Rose Brenner et al., Plaintiffs, v Marie Sewall et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Rose Brenner et al., Appellants, v Hubert S. Pearlman et al., Respondents. (And Another Ac*621tion.)

After the trial court issued a ruling which the attorney for the plaintiffs considered to be adverse to his clients, the plaintiffs refused to proceed with the trial of their action and rested without having established a prima facie case against the respondents. Under these circumstances, it was entirely proper to enter a judgment in favor of the respondents regardless of whether the ruling by which the plaintiffs claimed to be aggrieved was correct *(see, Leiner v Howard’s Appliance,*104 AD2d 634, *lv denied*64 NY2d 603).

In any event, the trial court’s ruling, which denied the plaintiffs’ application for a mistrial, was in all respects correct. The judgment under review should therefore be affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 RULE 13-A-14 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Kanwar J.S. Chadha, Ph. D., certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Entrada Networks, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
  (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c)   disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 (5) The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date:  December 15, 2004
 
 /s/ Kanwar Chadha ,
 Kanwar J.S. Chadha, Ph. D.
 Chief Executive Officer
H. R. 1690 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 700 Grant Street in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Joseph F. Weis Jr. United States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The United States courthouse located at 700 Grant Street in 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 

‘‘Joseph F. Weis Jr. United States Courthouse’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse 

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

‘‘Joseph F. Weis Jr. United States Courthouse’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Harold Simmons

*William F. Gallagher,*special assistant state’s attorney, in support of the motion.

Submitted April 16

decided April 23, 1975

The state’s motion to expedite the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County pursuant to § 762 of the Practice Book, as amended, is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion after the record has been filed.
# L_2009062EN.01000101.xml

| 6.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/1

---

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 175/2009

of 5 March 2009

amending Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 60 and 301 thereof,

Having regard to Council Common Position 2009/175/CFSP of 5 March 2009 amending Common Position 2003/495/CFSP on Iraq (1),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | In line with Resolution 1483 (2003) of the UN Security Council, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq (2), made specific arrangements as regards payments for petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas exported from Iraq, whereas Article 10 of that Regulation made specific arrangements concerning immunity from legal proceedings of certain Iraqi assets. These specific arrangements applied until 31 December 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In line with Resolution 1483 (2003) of the UN Security Council, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq (2), made specific arrangements as regards payments for petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas exported from Iraq, whereas Article 10 of that Regulation made specific arrangements concerning immunity from legal proceedings of certain Iraqi assets. These specific arrangements applied until 31 December 2008.

| (2) | Resolution 1859 (2008) of the UN Security Council and Common Position 2009/175/CFSP provide that both specific arrangements should be applied until 31 December 2009. It is appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Resolution 1859 (2008) of the UN Security Council and Common Position 2009/175/CFSP provide that both specific arrangements should be applied until 31 December 2009. It is appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 accordingly.

| (3) | In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation must enter into force immediately,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 is amended as follows:

in Article 18, paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:

‘3.   Articles 2 and 10 shall apply until 31 December 2009.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 March 2009.

For the Council

The President

M. ŘÍMAN

---

(1)  See page 28 of this Official Journal.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 169, 8.7.2003, p. 6.

2

---