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 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HYPERION SOLUTIONS CORPORATION FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         263,650
<SECURITIES>                                    30,517
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,483
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               456,382
<PP&E>                                         168,111
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 580,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,902
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                     309,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   580,900
<SALES>                                        115,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,054
<CGS>                                           39,487
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,509)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,093)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
#### Jessica Hirsh, Respondent, v David Hirsh, Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 32]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered January 3, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs and the stipulation of the parties, denied *542defendant’s cross motion for an award of interim counsel and expert fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court reviewed the financial circumstances of both parties as well as all the other circumstances of the case, and properly determined that interim fees were unwarranted *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; *DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). Indeed, the record shows that the parties’ financial circumstances were comparable, as they had no marital assets and were both gainfully employed with the financial means to pay their own attorneys *(see Cvern v Cvern,*198 AD2d 197, 198 [1993]). Moreover, the court properly found that defendant had contributed only minimally to the care of the parties’ child. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
Order filed July 19, 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00360

- CV

____________ THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

V. APPROXIMATELY $110,5 40.00, Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 2017

- 09348



### O R D E R Appellant’ s brief was due July 6, 2018

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 20, 2018
, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES C.
§1350


(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Novavax, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Frederick W. Driscoll, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
that:




1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates
and periods covered by this Report.




By: 
      /s/
      Frederick W.
      DriscollVice
      President, Chief Financial Officer and
    Treasurer


Date: May
10, 2010
#### MARKS v. KING.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 30, 1896.)

Trial—Taking Cask from Jury—Conflicting Evidence.

It is a question for the jury whether a sale was made to defendant individually, where plaintiff testifies that defendant said he bought the property for himself, and took possession of it, though there was other evidence, put in by plaintiff, that the sale was to a corporation which defendant was organizing.

' Appeal from trial term, Westchester county.

Action by Harry Marks against Jose B. King for the purchase price of a manufacturing plant. The complaint was dismissed on the trial at the close of plaintiff’s case, and from a judgment entered on such dismissal, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.

Smith Lent, for appellant.

Sidney F. Rawson, for respondent.

WILLARD BARTLETT, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover his share of the purchase price of a plant for the manufacture of dry mortar at the village of Sing Sing, which he alleged had been sold and delivered to the defendant, by himself and his co-owners, for the agreed price of $5,000. The answer contained a general denial, a plea of the statute of limitations, and two other *899separate defenses based on the statute of frauds. At the close of the, case for the plaintiff, the learned trial judge held that the sale was made to a corporation known as the Kings-Windsor Dry Mortar Cement Company, and not to the defendant King, and accordingly he dismissed the complaint.

Now, no doubt, there was testimony put in by the plaintiff tending to show that a corporation was the real purchaser, instead of the defendant^ but there was other evidence tending to show the contrary, which seems to have been overlooked by the court in granting the motion to dismiss. For the purposes of the motion, the plaintiff was entitled to have that evidence viewed in the most favorable light; and it was quite sufficient, in my opinion, to support a finding by the jury to the effect that the plant was bought by the defendant personally, and delivered to him individually. Among other things, the plaintiff swore that the defendant told him that he had purchased the property himself, and the plaintiff also testified that he and his associates ceased to manufacture dry mortar, and Mr. King took possession of their plant. It is true that the other testimony, to which I have referred, would have sustained a different finding, relieving the defendant from liability on the ground that the property was really bought by the corporation. This, however, did not entitle the defendant to a dismissal of the complaint.

The question as to who was the purchaser should have been left to the jury, and, for the error in refusing to submit it to them, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide event. All concur.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Seni or Judge Bumgardner

BRIAN TODD LANCASTER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1311-09-2 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 13, 2009 FIBERCOM, INC. AND VIGILANT INSURANCE CO.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Brian Lancaster, pro se , on brief). (Richard S. Sperbeck; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellees.

Brian Lancaster appeals a decision of th e Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that he failed to prove a causal relation betw een his January 17, 1991 accid ental injury and his

2008 condition and medical treatment. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. 1 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Lancaster v. Fibercom, Inc. , VWC File No. 156-15-32 (May 13, 2009). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Attached as an exhibit to Lancaster’s opening brief, he has submitted a June 5, 2009 letter from Dr. Stephen B. James. This letter is not part of the record on appeal. We have not considered it in reaching our opinion.
#### Suther v. Frail.

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Tried before the Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

Daniel A. Greene, for appellant.

Lane & White and John T. Shugart, for appellee.

This suit was brought by the appellee, Jeannette Frail, suing by her next friend, to recover of the plaintiff $20,-000 damages for her criminal seduction by the defendant.

There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff assessing her damages at $4,000.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,455,997
<SECURITIES>                                20,969,785
<RECEIVABLES>                                  702,966
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,829,670
<PP&E>                                         458,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                 177,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,674,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,454,714
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,469
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,141,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,674,099
<SALES>                                      5,392,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,392,280
<CGS>                                           95,376
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,300,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (365,583)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,361,946
<INCOME-TAX>                                   500,937
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,861,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,861,009
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILSON CONSTRCTION CO., an Oregon 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHEFFLER NORTHWEST, INC., a 

Nevada corporation, and FIDELITY AND 

DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a 

Maryland corporation (Bond No.

PRF7645954),

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-173-YY

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation

in this case on September 8, 2016. ECF 20. Judge You recommended that defendant Scheffler

Northwest, Inc.’s (“Scheffler”) Motion to Dismiss (part of ECF 4) should be denied, Defendant 

Scheffler’s Alternative Motion to Abate/Stay (part of ECF 4) should be granted, the Court should

compel arbitration, and the case should be stayed pending the conclusion of arbitration

proceedings. No party has filed objections.

Case 3:16-cv-00173-YY Document 22 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – ORDER

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face 

of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge You’s Findings 

and Recommendation, ECF 20. Defendant Scheffler’s Motion to Dismiss (part of ECF 4) is 

DENIED and Defendant Scheffler’s Alternative Motion to Abate/Stay (part of ECF 4) is 

GRANTED. The Court COMPELS arbitration and STAYS the case pending the conclusion of 

arbitration proceedings.

Case 3:16-cv-00173-YY Document 22 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00173-YY Document 22 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 3
Technical Work Group Meeting 

Draft Agenda rev. 7/14/08 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

Arizona Department of Water Resources 

3550 N. Central Avenue 

Verde Conference Room, 2nd Floor 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Wednesday 

July 16, 2008 

We welcome public comments following those from the TWG members during/after each presentation. 

Time Topic Presenter Tabs 

9:30 a.m. 

Welcome & Administrative 

1. Introductions and Determination of Quorum (16) 

2. Approval of December 4-5, 2007, Meeting Minutes 

3. REVIEW ONLY of April 8-9, 2008, Meeting Mins. 

3. Review of Action Items 

4. Old Business 

5. Review of TWG Ground Rules 

6. TWG Chair Nominations -> Action tomorrow 

Kurt Dongoske Agenda 

Draft Minutes / 

 Action items 

10:30 a.m. FY09 Budget and Work Plan & Updates 

• Socio Cultural Program Update (:15) 

• Physical Science Update (:15) 

• Vegetation Classification Update (:15) 

Dennis Kubly 

John Hamill 

Helen Fairley 

Paul Grams 

Matthew Andersen 

12:15 p.m. L U N C H 

1:15 p.m. FY09 Budget and Work Plan & Updates (cont) 

• Rainbow Trout Diet/Predation Study (:30) 

• LSSF Workshop Update (:15) 

• Near Shore Ecology/Fall Steady Flows (:15) 

Mike Yard 

Matthew Andersen 

Matthew Andersen

2:15 p.m. B R E A K 

3:15 p.m. 

FY 09 Budget and Workplan 

• Bureau of Reclamation 

• GCMRC 

• BAHG Report with input from CRAHG 

• Development of Motion to AMWG 

Dennis Kubly 

John Hamill 

Dennis Kubly 

Kurt Dongoske 

4:45 p.m. Wrap-up and Adjourn 
Technical Work Group Meeting 

Draft Agenda 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

Arizona Department of Water Resources 

3550 N. Central Avenue 

Verde Conference Room, 2nd Floor 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Thursday 

July 17, 2008 

We welcome public comments following those from the TWG members during/after each presentation. 

Time Topic Presenter Tabs 

8 a.m. 

Welcome & Administrative 

Introductions and Determination of Quorum (16) Kurt Dongoske Agenda

8:10 a.m. FY09 Budget Recommendation -> Motion to AMWG 

Proposed Motion: The Technical Work Group 

recommends the FY 2009 Annual Budget and 

Workplan to AMWG for approval at its September 

2008 meeting. 

TWG 

10:30 a.m. General Core Monitoring Plan for GCDAMP William Halvorsen 

11:30 a.m. L U N C H 

12:30 p.m. Election of New TWG Chair for FY09 Dennis Kubly 

1 p.m. Adaptive Management Progression: Potential 

Transition from Experiments to Management Actions 

Dave Garrett 

John Hamill 

Dennis Kubly 

3 p.m. Wrap up and Adjourn Kurt Dongoske
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
 Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory: Mandan, ND
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Employment
                        Work With Us
                                    ARS Vacancies at USDAJOBS
                    Local News
                        INTEGRATOR
                                    Bottom Line Ag SummitSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Mandan, North Dakota Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory Docs







Hunting at the Northern Great Plains Research Labheadline bar Before applying, potential applicants must review the “Code of Hunter Ethics” form they will be asked to sign at the North Dakota Game & Fish Department.Lottery applicants must provide the following information:First NameLast NameAddressCityStateCell phone numberEmail AddressInternational Bow Hunter’s Certificate NumberPlease sent this information to scott.jensen@usda.gov Anterless Deer Code of Ethics


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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald A. McFadden, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

					NO. 2-03-236-CV

JUDY HAMMOND							        APPELLANT

							V.

DIANE VINSON DEVASTO                                                         APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY

	----------

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	------------

	On September 2, 2003, October 1, 2003, and October 30, 2003, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court's order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and WALKER, J.

DELIVERED: December 11, 2003