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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
condensed  consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,649,400
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,915,379
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (335,352)
<INVENTORY>                                        430,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,016,924
<PP&E>                                          80,109,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (25,855,404)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,873,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,260,874
<BONDS>                                         10,064,889
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            62,867
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,820,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,873,851
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,019,258
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,376,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 741,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (98,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (35,605)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (63,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (63,297)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)



</TABLE>
#### Shantell L. HAWKINS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondent.

No. 2007-3213.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 29, 2007.

Shantell L. Hawkins, pro se.

*ORDER*

Shantell L. Hawkins (“Hawkins”) having filed the required Statement Concerning Discrimination.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The court’s June 8, 2007 dismissal order and the mandate be, and the same hereby are vacated and recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated.

(2) Hawkins’ brief is due on or before July 20, 2007.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

290 

CA 10-02048 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

JAMES E. MCMANUS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

 

V ORDER

COUNTY OF ONONDAGA, ONONDAGA COUNTY HOUSING 

DEVELOPMENT FUND, COMPANY, INC., 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANT. 

 

GORDON J. CUFFY, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (MARY J. FAHEY OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

BOTTAR LEONE, PLLC, SYRACUSE (AARON J. RYDER OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered February 10, 2010 in a personal

injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the

motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law

§ 240 (1). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme

Court.

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### Augustin J. San Filippo, as Trustee of John F. Dodge, Appellant, and Douglass E. Wendel, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of John F. Dodge, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Marine Midland Bank, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on January 3, 1984, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to any objections to the proposed settlement. No opinion. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.
#### POND, Respondent, v. SALAMANCA NAT. BANK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

April, 1896.)

Action by Charles F. Pond, as receiver of the Weaver Lumber Company, against the Salamanca National Bank.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1649

JOHN MCSHEFFREY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PAUL J. POWERS, Sued in his Individual and Official Capacities; JASON S. 

MIYARES, Sued in his Official Capacity; YANA TURNER, Sued in her Individual 

and Official Capacities,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:22-cv-00080-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: April 15, 2024 Decided: April 24, 2024

Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John McSheffrey, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia 

Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1649 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

John McSheffrey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal 

was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on May 15, 2023, and the appeal period expired 

on June 14, 2023. McSheffrey filed the notice of appeal on June 15, 2023. Because 

McSheffrey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of 

the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1649 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Gregory G. Stiver et al., Appellants, v Good & Fair Carting & Moving, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted June 4, 2007;

decided June 7, 2007

Motion by Defense Association of New York, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
BIG SANDY RIVER ABOVE BIG SANDY RESERVOIR NEAR FARSONLatitude: 42.317Longitude: -109.486Elevation: 6770

BIG SANDY RIVER ABOVE BIG SANDY RESERVOIR NEAR FARSON

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



Pocket Creek

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



Larsen Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Big Sandy Opening Site Page...



Big Sandy Opening

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



Hobbs Park
EXHIBIT
15.4
  
 
 Securities
and Exchange Commission
 100
F Street, NE
 Washington,
D.C. 20549
    Ladies
and Gentlemen:
  The
firm of Somekh Chaikin, Certified Public Accountants (Israel), a member firm of
KPMG International, was previously the independent registered public accounting
firm for RADCOM Ltd. (the “Company”), and reported on the financial statements
of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007. On December 9,
2009 we were dismissed. We have read the Company’s statements included under
Item 16F of its December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 20-F/A, and agree with
such statements except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with
the Company’s statement that newly engaged accountants were not consulted
regarding any of the matters or events set forth in Item 16F(a)(2) of Form
20-F.
  Very
truly yours,
    Somekh
Chaikin
 Certified
Public Accountants (Isr.)
 A
Member Firm of KPMG International
   Tel
Aviv, Israel
 November
2, 2010
EXHIBIT 21

SRS LABS, INC.        SUBSIDIARIES

|Name                                        |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation |  | Ownership                      
|------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|SRSWOWcast.com, Inc.                        |  | Delaware                      |  | SRS Labs, Inc.100% Direct     
|ValenceTech Limited                         |  | Bermuda                       |  | SRS Labs, Inc.100% Direct     
|Valence Technology Limited ("ValenceH.K.") |  | Hong Kong                     |  | ValenceTech Limited100% Direct
|Valence Semiconductor Design Limited        |  | Hong Kong                     |  | Valence H.K.100% Direct       
|ASP Microelectronics Limited ("ASP")        |  | Hong Kong                     |  | Valence H.K.100% Direct       
|LEC Electronic Components Limited ("LEC")   |  | Hong Kong                     |  | Valence H.K.100% Direct       
|VSD Electronics Limited                     |  | Hong Kong                     |  | Valence H.K.100% Direct       
|LEC Microelectronics Limited                |  | Hong Kong                     |  | ASP100% Direct                
|LEC Electronics Limited                     |  | Hong Kong                     |  | LEC100% Direct                

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.2

   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Calvin E. Jenness, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blount International,
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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financing 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 controls.



Date:  November 19, 2004

/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
------------------------------------
/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Holly M. Gibbons, Appellant, v Foster J. Gibbons, Respondent.

Submitted February 13, 2007;

decided May 3, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ALIEN TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

INTERMEC, INC., INTERMEC IP CORP., 

INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________

2018-1727

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of North Dakota in No. 3:06-cv-00051-DLH-ARS, 

Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

TED G. DANE, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by 

ELIZABETH LAUGHTON. 

 DOUGLAS L. SAWYER, Perkins Coie, LLP, Chicago, IL, 

argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by 

MARK T. SMITH; DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH.

 ______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 May 17, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
PECOS RIVER AT RED BLUFF, NMLatitude: 32.075Longitude: -104.039Elevation: 2869

PECOS RIVER AT RED BLUFF, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sierra Blanca Site Page...



Sierra Blanca

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Adams Ranch #1 Site Page...



Adams Ranch #1

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wesner Springs Site Page...



Wesner Springs

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



Elk Cabin

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



Santa Fe
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 28, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00505

- CR

Rex Allen Stockton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT OF LAW NO. 4 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JON ES, JUSTICES ROSE AN D GOODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and

the parties’ argume nts, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because appellant is indigent

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
NUMBER 13-22-00488-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF E.M.N., A CHILD.

 

On appeal from the 444th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

This appeal arises from the trial court’s modification of child support. Appellant 

Travis Norris attempted to appeal the trial court’s order; however, his notice of appeal is 

premature as the clerk’s record indicates no order has been entered.

The record indicates that an order regarding child support was entered on August 

4, 2022, and appellant filed a request for a de novo hearing in the trial court on August 8, 

2022. The record also indicates that the trial court noticed a de novo hearing to be held 
2

September 13, 2022, and according to appellant’s October 13, 2022 notice of appeal, an 

order modifying child support was rendered.

Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears there is no final, 

appealable order. On January 3, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this 

defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days 

from the date of receipt of the notice, his appeal would be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to 

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

See id. 42.3(a), (c).

Following rendition of a final judgment or order, any appealing party must file a 

new notice of appeal.1

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

26th day of January, 2023.

1 Any pending motions are denied as moot.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Danzy, Appellant.

The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses *672was inconsistent and incredible as a matter of law. In reviewing the record in a light most favorable to the People, we find that any rational trier of fact could have concluded that the defendant was guilty of the crimes charged *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Although minor inconsistencies appear in the testimony of certain witnesses, the assessment of credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence are determinations to be made by the jury. On this record we find no basis to conclude that a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt existed *(see, People v Storm,*114 AD2d 477).

We also find no merit to the defendant’s further contention that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel. The record indicates that the defendant’s attorney made proper motions prior to, during and after the trial, vigorously cross-examined the prosecution’s key witness and extensively reviewed the evidence and argued the defendant’s position to the jury during his summation. Although counsel’s trial tactics were unsuccessful, under all of the circumstances presented, we find no basis to conclude that the defendant was denied the effective representation by counsel *(see, People v Zaborski,*59 NY2d 863; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group

Meeting Notes

Tuesday May 8, 2018

In attendance: Heather Patno, Jerry Wilhite, Dan Schaad, Kevin Bestgen, Tom Chart, Ashley 

Nielson, Jed Parker, George Weekly, Tildon Jones, Peter Crookston, Randy Staffeldt

1. May 8, 2018 Hydrology Review

a. Flaming Gorge April-July forecast = 1,000,000 acre-feet (102% of 30-year 

average), average (below median) hydrologic classification.

b. Yampa-Maybell + Lily April-July forecast = 841,000 acre-feet (66% of 30-year 

average, moderately dry hydrologic classification.

c. Combined hydrology leads to recommendation to operate Flaming Gorge within 

the moderately dry hydrologic classification.

d. Yampa 15-day deterministic model from the CBRFC presently indicates a sub9,000 cfs peak occurring May 12 – May 13, 2018.

2. Downramp rates

a. The recovery program would like to explore the possibility of utilizing enhanced 

downramp rates for the benefit of Colorado pikeminnow, possibly by utilizing 

rates in different hydrologic classification

b. Reclamation would prefer that requests for altered downramp rates be considered 

through a study request, which would likely require discussion in a public forum 

such as the Working Group meetings per the 2005 Biological Opinion.

3. Biological benefits of Recovery Program flow request

a. The Recovery Program was asked to comment on the biological benefits of 

reshaping the current planned release of 4,600 cfs for 14 days. The following are 

the stated benefits:

i. Higher peaks are more likely to entrain larval razorback suckers in the 

managed floodplains.

ii. Due to head pressure on the gates of the managed floodplains, a higher 

peak will put more water into the floodplains, enhancing habitat and 

overall water quality above what a lower magnitude peak would yield.

4. Modeled emergence projection

a. Current guidance indicates that likely razorback sucker larval emergence to take 

place between May 15 and May 22, 2018.

b. Fish & Wildlife Service has begun light trapping for razorback sucker larvae. 

Nothing has been captured yet.

5. Jed will create calendar place-holders for weekly FGTWG meetings through May. The 

dates and times established are as follows:

a. Tuesday, May 15th at 12:00 p.m.

b. Wednesday, May 23rd at 1:00 p.m.

c. Tuesday, May 29th at 12:00 p.m.
#### LOCKWOOD et al., Respondents, v. WILLIAMS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Henry O. Lockwood and others against Agnes E. Williams and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.