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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
     COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME
     TAXES QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185
<NAME>                        IDX Systems Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                           <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS                   6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                       1
<CASH>                             12,039                  15,617 
<SECURITIES>                       84,463                  69,899 
<RECEIVABLES>                      46,930                  35,477
<ALLOWANCES>                        (889)                   (579)      
<INVENTORY>                             0                       0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  149,222                 123,468 
<PP&E>                             41,574                  33,970   
<DEPRECIATION>                     20,852                  16,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    172,443                 141,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              30,199                  20,124
<BONDS>                             2,500                   2,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                       0 
<PREFERRED>                             0                       0
<COMMON>                              212                     209
<OTHER-SE>                        137,623                 116,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      172,443                 141,358
<SALES>                            17,373                  15,675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   92,606                  76,427
<CGS>                              13,290                  12,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      80,745                  66,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      205                      51
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     57                      67
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    14,028                  12,009 
<INCOME-TAX>                        5,611                   4,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 8,417                   7,209 
<DISCONTINUED>                          0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0                       0
<CHANGES>                               0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                        8,417                   7,209 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .39                     .34 
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .39                     .34
        


</TABLE>
Filed 7/3/13 P. v. Tarver CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and pa rties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for pu blication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ALLEN TARVER, Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B246457 (Super. Ct. No. BA395939) (Los Angeles County)

Allen Tarver appeals from the judgme nt following his no contest plea to possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court suspended impo sition of sentence and granted three years probation with 180 days county jail. Appellant was ordered pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) 1 , a $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court security fee, a $30 conviction assessment, a $50 lab f ee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), and $85 penalty assessments (§ 1464 ; Gov., Code, § 76000). We appointed counsel to represent appe llant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On May 21, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to cons ider. No response has been

received.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.2 The arrest report, preliminary hearing tr anscript, and transcript of the motion to suppress evidence reflect that the Los Angeles Police Department found baggies of rock cocaine, a revolver and shotgun, cash, pills, marijuan a, a razor blade, and a scale in appellant's bedroom during a probation search of his fath er's, David Tarver, house. The trial court partially granted appellant's motion to suppre ss evidence (§1538.5) on the ground that the firearms, pills, cash, marijuana, razor blade, and scale were not in plain view during the protective sweep of appellant's bedroom. The trial court denied the motion to suppress the baggies of cocaine and a revolver which were in plain view.

We have reviewed the entire record and ar e satisfied that appe llant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities a nd that no arguable issues exist. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

PERREN, J.3 Gail Ruderman Feuer, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

________________ ______________

Richard Fitzer, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.
Exhibit
14.(a).3





CONSENT





I hereby consent to the inclusion of
the summary of my appraisal of Blue Square's investment property under the
captions “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” (note 2e) and “Investment
Property” (note 7) in the consolidated financial statements of Blue
Square-Israel Ltd. contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Blue
Square-Israel Ltd., filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to
the incorporation by reference of such summary in the previously filed
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-149175) of Blue Square-Israel
Ltd.




Tel Aviv, Israel
              /s/ Oded HaushnerJune 23, 2009
              O.
      Haushner Civil Eng. andReal
      Estate Appraisal Ltd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS
OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE  STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0001001051 
<NAME>                              TERRACE FOOD GROUP     
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                     dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.000
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               4,981,440      
<ALLOWANCES>                                  152,154
<INVENTORY>                                 1,833,156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            6,953,387
<PP&E>                                      5,672,049
<DEPRECIATION>                                538,416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             16,760,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      10,231,980
<BONDS>                                     4,586,849
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          948
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,771,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,772,264
<SALES>                                    11,096,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           11,096,995
<CGS>                                       8,183,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               8,183,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,837,757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               20,891
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            312,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (257,785)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (257,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (257,785)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
        




</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 220

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

PETER ISIAH UVALLE

, A ppellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 139 th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDE R

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's third motion for extension of time to

file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on May 26 , 202 1

. On August

24, 2021, after appellant’s second motion for extension of time, the brief was ordered due

on November 4, 2021.2 The Court, having fully examined and considered appellan t’s third mo tion for

extension of time to file the brief and the extension s previously granted in this cause, is

of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's motion for extension of time to file

the brief should be granted with order. The Court looks with disfavor upon the delay

caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter and f urther motions for

extension of time will not be granted absent new and/or exigent circumstances

.

Appellant's third motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby granted in

part and denied in part , and the Honorable Traci Evans , counsel for appellant, is hereby

ordered to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before January 13 , 202 2

.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

18th day of November , 2021.
Exhibit A to Declaration 

Page 1 of 1

PeRKINSCOie 

January 21,2015 

VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS U.S. MAIL 

Denise Subramaniam 

13865 SW Walker Road 

Beaverton, OR 97005 

Re: LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam 

U.S. District Court Case No. 14-cv-01836-MO 

Dear Ms. Subramaniam: 

112!1 NW Couch Street 

lOth Floor 

Portland. OR 9770?·4128 

Gabri~llc D. Richards 

GRichanlsQ~pcrkinscoie.com 

lJ (503) 727-2255 

f (503) :146-2255 

0 ·I 50J 727 20CU 

G • I ~OJ 777 2222 

per ku1sco:e com 

As a reminder, your new deadline to answer the Complaint in the above-referenced case is 

Monday, .January 26, pending the Court's entry of an order approving this extension. I strongly 

recommend that you sign up for electronic liling through the Court. 

Also, as we discussed previously, I will be contacting you within the next several days to 

discuss a discovery plan. This conference is required by Local Rule 26-1. The Local Rules are 

available on the Court's Web site, http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/. 

cc: (via e-mail only) 

Erick J. Haynie, Esq., Perkins Coic, LLP 

Gary F. Eisenberg, Esq., Perkins Coic, LLP 

79707·0017/l.EGALI24813829 I 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 58-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EDWARD WINGFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

Case No. 3:16-CV-00503-AA 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation in the above-captioned 

action on January 25, 2017. Magistrate Judge Russo recommends that Commissioner's motion to 

dismiss should be denied and this matter should be reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b). 

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de nova detennination of that portion of the 

magistrate judge's repo1i. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00503-JR Document 22 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 2
Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendant filed objections, and 

plaintiff filed a response to defendant's objections. I have given de novo review of the Findings 

and Recommendation, and I find no eirnr. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and 

Recommendation (doc. 16) filed January 25, 2017 is ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to 

Dismiss (doc. 11) is DENIED, and this case is REVERSED and REMANDED for further 

proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this~ra; of March 2017. 

ANNL.AIKEN 

United States District Judge 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00503-JR Document 22 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit  32.1**

**WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

The undersignedofficers of Univision Communications Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, hereby certify that, to their knowledge:

      (i)  The annual report on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2006 of the Company, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission  (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

  (ii)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| Dated: February 9, 2007  | /s/ A. JERROLD PERENCHIO                |     |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
|                          | A. Jerrold  Perenchio                   |     |
| * *                      | *Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer* | * * |
| Dated: February 9,  2007 | /s/  ANDREW W. HOBSON                   |     |
|                          | Andrew W. Hobson                        |     |
| * *                      | *Chief  Financial Officer*              |     |

 

----
#### Stinson *v.*The State.

Appeal from Cherokee Circuit Court.

Tried before the lion. J. A. Bilbro.

Burnett & Culli, for appellant.

Chas. G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State.

The 'appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for selling vinous, spirituous and malt liquors without a license and contrary to law.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.
Order entered August 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00373-CR

CHARLES WILLIAM DOSS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-58147-Y

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
FIRST COLORADO BANCORP, INC.

                                   EXHIBIT 11
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                          For the three months
                                             Ended March 31,
                                            1997          1996
                                       -------------   -----------

Net Income (000's)                       $     4,815   $     4,337
                                         ===========   ===========

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding       16,006,335    18,868,838

Common stock equivalents due to
  dilutive effect of stock options           436,325       204,318
                                         -----------   -----------

Total weighted average common
  shares equivalents outstanding          16,442,660    19,073,156
                                         ===========   ===========

Primary Earnings Per Share               $      0.29   $      0.23
                                         ===========   ===========


Weighted Average Shares Outstanding       16,006,335    18,868,838

Common stock equivalents due to
  dilutive effect of stock options
  using end of period market value
  versus average market value for
  period when utilizing the treasury
  stock method regarding stock options       410,838       206,461
                                         -----------   -----------

Total weighted average common
  shares and equivalents outstanding
  for fully diluted computation           16,417,173    19,075,299
                                         ===========   ===========

Fully diluted earnings per share         $      0.29   $      0.23
                                         ===========   ===========


Earnings per share of common stock for the three month  periods  ended March 31,
1997 and March 31,  1996 has been  determined  by  dividing  net  income for the
period by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding, net
of unearned ESOP shares of 1,072,303 and 1,206,341, respectively.
Exhibit 4.8


 


STATE OF DELAWARE


CERTIFICATE
OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

OF

AGREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


 


The undersigned, for
the purpose of forming a Limited Partnership pursuant to Section 17-201 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act
("Act"), hereby certifies as follows:


 


FIRST. The name of
this Limited Partnership shall be:


 


Agree Limited Partnership


 


SECOND. The address
of the registered office of the Limited Partnership and the name and address of the registered agent for service of process upon
the Limited Partnership required to be maintained by Section 17-104 of the Act is:


 


	
        Registered Office: 
	
        c/o The Prentice-Hall

        Corporation System, Inc.

        32 Loockerman Square

        Suite L-100

        Dover, Delaware 19901

	 	 
	
        Name and Address of

 Registered Agent:
	
        The Prentice-Hall

Corporation System, Inc.

32 Loockerman Square

Suite L-100

        Dover, Delaware 19901



 


THIRD. The General
Partner of the Limited Partnership is Agree Realty Corporation and its mailing address is: 31850 Northwestern Highway, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48334.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the general partner herein before named, has executed this Certificate of Limited Partnership
this 4th day of April, 1994.


 


	 	AGREE REALTY CORPORATION,
	 	General Partner
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Richard Agree	 
	 	 	Name: Richard Agree
	 	 	Title: President


 






     


     


    

 





CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT

TO THE

CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

OF

AGREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


 


The undersigned, desiring
to amend the Certificate of Limited Partnership of Agree Limited Partnership pursuant to the provisions of Section 17-202 of the
Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify as follows:


 


FIRST: The name of
the Limited Partnership is Agree Limited Partnership


 


SECOND: Article II
of the Certificate of Limited Partnership shall be amended as follows:


 


The address of the Partnership's
registered office in the Stale of Delaware is Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware,
19801. The name of the Partnership's registered agent for service of process in the State of Delaware at such address is The Corporation
Trust Company.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the under executed this Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership on this 4th day of April,
2005.


 


	 	AGREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Kenneth R. Howe	 
	 	 	Kenneth R. Howe
	 	 	General Partner
#### In the Matter of John B. and Another, Infants. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Julie W., Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for reargument denied.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-324-CV

IN RE CLIFTON DEWAYNE HARVIN RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is

of the opinion that the petition should be dismissed as moot. Accordingly,

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, LIVINGSTON, and GARDNER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: October 7, 2009