alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Financial Data Schedule for the Third Quarter 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001000779
<NAME>                         Consolidated Delivery & Logistics, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     $1.00
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     $1.00
<CASH>                                             823
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,870)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,602
<PP&E>                                          15,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,122)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,459
<BONDS>                                            890
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,399
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,507 
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   657
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,120
<INCOME-TAX>                                       807
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,313
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,313
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .19
        



</TABLE>
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY AT SAN ACACIALatitude: 34.256Longitude: -106.891Elevation: 4666

RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY AT SAN ACACIA

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vacas Locas Site Page...



Vacas Locas

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tres Ritos Site Page...



Tres Ritos

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Powderhorn Site Page...



Taos Powderhorn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Shuree Site Page...



Shuree

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Palo Site Page...



Palo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Garita Peak Site Page...



Garita Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rio Santa Barbara Site Page...



Rio Santa Barbara

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Pueblo Site Page...



Taos Pueblo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Los Lunas PMC Site Page...



Los Lunas PMC

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sevilleta Site Page...



Sevilleta

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Alcalde Site Page...



Alcalde

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thoreau Site Page...



Thoreau

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bateman Site Page...



Bateman

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chamita Site Page...



Chamita

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gallegos Peak Site Page...



Gallegos Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hopewell Site Page...



Hopewell

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Costilla Site Page...



North Costilla

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quemazon Site Page...



Quemazon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red River Pass #2 Site Page...



Red River Pass #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Senorita Divide #2 Site Page...



Senorita Divide #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rice Park Site Page...



Rice Park
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         628,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                   460,000
<INVENTORY>                                    335,199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,132,594
<PP&E>                                          39,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,367,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          361,787
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,564
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,367,668
<SALES>                                        106,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,080
<CGS>                                           47,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  448,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                84,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (416,048)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (416,048)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (416,048)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.14)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>DUE TO THE NET LOSS POSITION OF THE COMPANY.  THE BASIC NET LOSS PER COMMON
SHARE IS THE SAME AS THE DILUTED NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE.  NET LOSS PER SHARE
IS COMPUTED BASED ON THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK
OUTSTANDING DURING THE YEAR.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1 -- STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(UNAUDITED)

NM HOLDINGS, INC.

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      FOR THE THREE MONTHS
                                                                             ENDED
                                                                           MARCH 31,
                                                                   --------------------------
                                                                      1999           1998
                                                                   -----------    -----------
<S>                                                                <C>            <C>        
BASIC LOSS PER SHARE:
   Weighted average shares outstanding                               1,152,145      1,364,006
                                                                   -----------    -----------
   Net income (loss) applicable to common stockholders             $   (41,977)   $    49,153
                                                                   -----------    -----------
   Basic net loss per share applicable to common stockholders:
     Loss from continuing operations                                      (.04)            --
     Income from discontinued operations                                    --            .04
                                                                   -----------    -----------
     Net income (loss) per share                                   $      (.04)   $       .04
                                                                   ===========    ===========

DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE:
   Weighted average shares outstanding                               1,152,145      1,364,006
   Dilutive potential common shares                                         --             --
                                                                   -----------    -----------
     Total                                                           1,152,145      1,364,006
                                                                   -----------    -----------
   Net income (loss) applicable to common stockholders                 (41,977)        49,153
                                                                   -----------    -----------
   Diluted net loss per share applicable to common stockholders:
     Loss from continuing operations                                      (.04)            --
     Income from discontinued operations                                    --            .04
                                                                   -----------    -----------
     Net income (loss) per share                                   $      (.04)   $       .04
                                                                   ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 4

(Confidential - To Be Filed 

Under Seal)
EXCERPT OF SPREADSHEET:

WinBack_USA_Customers_Jan_Dec2013.xlsx

(Confidential –

To Be Filed Under Seal)
EXCERPT OF SPREADSHEET:

2014 Winback Master List.xlsx

(Confidential –

To Be Filed Under Seal)
EXCERPT OF SPREADSHEET:

VISALUS_WAKEFIELD000242

-CONFIDENTIAL

PatriciaRottman_WinBack_Jan2015.xlsx

(Confidential –

To Be Filed Under Seal)
EXCERPT OF SPREADSHEET:

FuelKitUpgrade_Jan2015.csv

(Confidential –

To Be Filed Under Seal)
EXCERPT OF SPREADSHEET:

FuelKitUpgrade_Jan2015P2.csv

(Confidential –

To Be Filed Under Seal)
EXCERPT OF SPREADSHEET:

Did Not Buy Neon Yet.csv

(Confidential –

To Be Filed Under Seal)
#### Hunter v. Stender.

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

May 26, 1890.)

Pleading—Bill of Pabtioülabs—Action on Account.

A complaint alleged that plaintiff, between certain dates, rendered defendant’» testator services and advanced him money, in all of the value of $2,000; that they adjusted their accounts at $2,000, and agreed that the same should be payable at testator’s death, and that he would make testamentary provision to that effect; and that testator died without having paid or made provision for the payment of said sum. *Held*that, as the complaint stated a cause of action on an account, as well as on the account stated and promise of testamentary provision, plaintiff would be required to furnish the items of her account.

Appeal from special term, Albany county.

Action by Margaret J. Hunter against Emma E. Stender, executrix, etc., of Smith Quackenbush, deceased. A motion to require plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars was denied, and defendant appeals.

Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Mayham, JJ.

Be *Witt & Spoor,*for appellant. 27. *C. Moak,*for respondent.

Landon, J.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff from September 1, 1879, to July 6, 1881, rendered the testator services and advanced him money, in all of the value of $2,000; that on that day she and the testator adjusted the accounts between them at $2,000, and agreed that the same should be payable at his death, and that he would make provision to that effect in his will; that the testator did make provision to that effect in his will, but by a subsequent will revoked it, and died in 1887 without having paid, or having made provision for the payment of, the said sum. The answer puts in issue the rendition of services, the loan of money, the accounting and promise, and the making of any will making provision for plaintiff; pleads payment, and the statute of limitations. The complaint is framed in a double aspect,—to recover either upon the account, or upon the account stated, and the promise to provide for payment of the amount by will. Under the first aspect of the complaint, we think it reasonable that the plaintiff should furnish the items of her account. The plaintiff’s contention that the action is not upon the account, but upon the account stated, and promise of testamentary pro. vision for its payment, may prove to be true upon the trial; but, as the com. *148plaint is framed, the action upon the account seems to be sufficiently stated. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.
**OFFiCE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

**Ronarable** PO RO Chamborm, Chairman Revenue and T8xatlan COmw&ttee tlouaeof RsprsaantatlVom Austin, Texoa **Dew Mr.**  Ohamberrr Oplalon **ao. 04R9n**  **A rte:**  ConmtltutlonalIty cifnk lpnrO**Tour request**  **?or** matter la am tollora~

**669 e**  Warned at **t.he Regular** 

**CounoiY** 3&,

deolan?d to be **a** *joint **gotemmenta) agency**  of thla **the pther**  **atatem which**  **OOOper8te With**  **3t.O (SeO.9)** 

**ens or**  **this Cowiaaion**  **are set**  **forthin Seo**  **tlon 4**  

### of th?-Aettc **and** 

### comprlme**wholesome Raremental**  

### objeotirea**The Aot**  **I tselt**  **earr3ed no**  **apnro7viatifm, and**  **so Par**  **RI) re**  **are adriwd,**  **there has**  **never been**  **mr Rpmcsriatlon**  **made to**  **ce8rry ntrt**  

### It*purwses.

Thereare, of Cfwrs09**certnin con&i**  **tutI.nnaY fnhihl**  **tfono govepnln~**  **the approwlation**  **of muhlic**  **?oner hy**  **t.ho** 

### rerzl?r-

### honorable**1. Il.**  **Chambers -**  page **1**

lature. Eiret of there in importanoe Is found In Seotlon 44 of 

### Artf

ale III, forbidding **any ‘** **grant,** by approprlatlon or otherwise, **any** amount of money out of the treaarry of the State, to **my** lndlridoal, **on** B olalm, **real** or pretended, rhen **the** same shall not hate been provided for by preexisting lawOm

next, of 

### oourse,there la **the** familiar Seotlon 0 of Artlole TIII deolarlngr **‘ lo**  **money**rhallbe drawn from the tre8aury but **in** purouanoe of **mpeoifio** apDronrlatlonm made by ëlaw,l l l.í

### NOW, SenateBill 110.187 la a etrtu**tory enaotment**  entirely auutfiolent rltbln ltaelt to oonstltute pre-exiatlnp 

### IaT **for** 

### an appropriationto oarryout the purposes therein outlined.



### Sincea oopy of 

### theproposed appropri8tlon bill djd not accomrany the request Por opinion, this Department la **not** attevntlnx to pass on any quemtlon oi'the mafiialenc~ of the bill itself.

Oi course, any approprlatloa **made**in this connection would hare to comply with the requirement of apeoifionea~ of' purpose, but **there** is nothing different **in** this **respect** 

### from other ordinary appropriation bllla~

**mstinp thst**  what we **have** amid rjll answer the lnqulry In your mind, no **are**

Very truly yours ATTORWY CEXERAL 

### OF TEXAS

OS-MR
#### Emily F. McFarland et al. *v.*Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., Trustee (Estate of John H. Brewster), et al.

House, C. J., Cotter, Loiselle, Bogdanski and Longo, Js.

Argued April 2

decision released April 29, 1975

*Curtiss K. Thompson,*with whom, on the brief, was *Robert N. Schmals,*for the appellants and cross appellees (plaintiffs Anthony B. Eberts and National Trust Company, Ltd., executors of the estate of Carolyn B. Eberts).

*Jaynes R. Fogarty,*with whom, on the brief, was *Paul C. Gravenhorst,*for the appellee and cross appellant (named defendant).

*412
      *Michael M. Calhoun,*with whom, on the brief, were *William, C. Strong*and *Anthony M. Macleod,*for the appellees (defendant Charles S. Wilcox, coexeeutor of the estate of E. Franklin Brewster, et al.).

*Jay W. Jacobs,*for the appellees (defendants Ridgway B. Knight et al.).

*Leo Nevas,*pro se as guardian ad litem for unborn and unascertained persons.

Per Curiam.

This case arose as an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for the district of Westport which approved and allowed a final account of a trustee and ordered distribution of the trust corpus as set forth in that account. In a detailed memorandum of decision the trial court *(Saden, J.)*discussed the well-settled, controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the facts which it found. Our examination of the record discloses no material changes which should be made in the court’s finding and no harmful error in any ruling of the court made in the course of the hearing on the appeal.

The trial court’s memorandum of decision is reported in 32 Conn. Sup. 20, 337 A.2d 1, and we adopt it as a sufficient statement of the reasons why the plaintiffs cannot prevail on the appeal to this court. Since we find no error on the plaintiffs’ appeal, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the cross appeal filed by the named defendant.

There is no error.
#### COX, Respondent, v. UNION ELECTRIC RY. CO. OF SARATOGA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 12, 1897.)

Action by William *Cox*against the Union Electric Railway Company of Saratoga.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to answer over in 20 days upon payment of costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-8006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TOMMY LAWSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-02-323; CA-04-22429)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tommy Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Lawson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lawson

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lawson’s

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1909

To repeal the telephone excise tax.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 2, 1998

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To repeal the telephone excise tax.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective with respect to amounts

5 paid pursuant to bills first rendered on or after January

6 1, 1999, subchapter B of chapter 33 of the Internal Reve7 nue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4251 et seq.) is repealed.

8 For purposes of the proceeding sentence, in the case of

9 communications services rendered before December 1,

10 1998, for which a bill has not been rendered before Janu11 ary 1, 1999, a bill shall be treated as having been first

12 rendered on December 31, 1998.
2

S 1909 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Effective January

2 1, 1999, the table of subchapters for such chapter is

3 amended by striking out the items relating to subchapter

4 B.

Æ
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Paul Rathblott

*Frank Cochran,*in support of the petition.

*Robert E. Beach, Jr.,*of the office of the chief state’s attorney, in opposition.

Submitted April 2

decided April 8, 1975

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Session of the Superior Court is denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Case number: 01-13-00480-CV

Style: In re Milton Pate, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

from Pate v. Linbeck Group, LLC et al., No. 2012-34298, 

in the 113th District Court of Harris County, the Hon. 

Michael Landrum presiding.

On June 7, 2013, relator, Milton Pate, filed a petition for writ of mandamus

and motion to stay the production of medical records. Relator’s motion for stay is 

granted. The Court stays the deposition of Retina Consultants Houston and the 

production of “documents pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of Milton 

Pate’s vision during the time beginning five years prior to incident that is the 

subject of this litigation, to present.” The stay is effective until this mandamus 

proceeding is finally decided.

The Court further requests a response from the real parties in interest. Rule 

9.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the “mailbox rule,” is suspended 

for the filing of the response in this case; the response must be received in the 

clerk’s office or filed in accordance with this court’s rules on e-filing no later than 

Friday, June 21, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 9.2(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown 

Acting individually

Date: June 7, 2013.