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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SIX
MONTH FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          23,587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,770
<PP&E>                                          69,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,218)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    108,968
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,705)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,553
<SALES>                                          1,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,768
<CGS>                                              813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,223)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,245)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.25)


</TABLE>
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 20 2000 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 98-9069

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 97-00124-4-HLM SCI LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, f.k.a. Sunrise Carpet Industries, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee.
versus HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, Defendants-Appellants,

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________ (June 20, 2000)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:2 The facts in this case are set out in our prior opinion, in which we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia on a controlling issue of law: DOES SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR RETALIATION BY A SUPERVISOR TRIGGER EXCLUSION SIXTEEN ON PAGE THREE OF THE UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICY IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDES: “COVERAGE AFFORDED ANY OF [THE INSURED’S] EMPLOYEES TO ‘BODILY INJURY’ OR ‘PERSONAL INJURY’ . . . TO OTHER EMPLOYEES ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT”? SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court of Georgia responded, “we find that exclusion sixteen of the umbrella policy does not excl ude coverage for Sunrise’s claims originating from the sexual harassment suit.” SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co. , 526 S.E.2d 555, 556 (Ga. 2000). In light of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s response, we find that the district court correctly concluded that Plaintiff-Appellee SCI Liquidating Corporation (“SCI”) was covered under th e umbrella policy’s “personal injury” provisions. The district court found that SCI was covered under both the umbrella policy’s “personal injury” provisions and the co mmercial general liability policy’s “bodily injury” provisions. We reaffirm our prio r holding that the district court erred in finding coverage under the commercia l general liability policy. See SCI Liquidating3 Corp. , 181 F.3d at 1217. Thus, we reverse th e judgment for SCI against DefendantAppellant Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Because we conclude that SCI was c overed under the umbrella policy and because the amount of damages is not in dispute, we affirm the judgment for SCI against Defendant-Appellant Hartford Casua lty Insurance Company in the amount of $ 187,972.21, plus prejudgment interest, and $3,384 in costs. REVERSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.
#### In re RUPPANER. In the matter of Antoine Ruppaner.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June, 1896.)

No opinion. Motion denied. See 37 N. Y. Supp. 429, 39 N. Y. Supp. 763, 1131, and 41 N. Y. Supp. 212.
#### Philip Griffith *against*George West.

CERTIORARI.

Upon the argument of a *certiorari,*the plaintiff cannot assign as a cause of reversal, a specific reason, not stated among the reasons filed; unless there is a general reason filed, under which it can be fairly comprehended.

*White*moved to reverse the judgment for a cause not stated in the reasons filed.

*Sloan,*for defendant, objected that the reason urged for the reversal was not one of those filed, and that as there was no general reason filed, under which it could be fairly comprehended, to admit the plaintiff now to assign it, as a cause for reversal, would be a surprise upon the defendant.

*417Ch. Justice.

Under a general reason assigned, the practice has been to allow the plaintiff to insist upon any error apparent on the face of the proceedings, saving the opposite party at all times from prejudice by surprise. In this case there is no general reason assigned; the reasons are all specific, and as no one covers the error now proposed, we cannot take notice of it.
#### PEOPLE v. COMMERCIAL ALLIANCE INS. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1896.)

Proceeding _ for the dissolution of the Commer_ _ cial Alliance Insurance Company.

No opinion, Motion for leave to go to court of appeals granted, certifying question as amended. Order to be entered as of this date.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40224 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROLANDO LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-03-CR-317-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rolando LopezHernandez concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

# AGENCY:

Advisory Group on Electron Devices, Department of Defense. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Working Group B (Microelectronics) of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a change to a closed session meeting. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held at 0900. Tuesday, April 25, 2000. This meeting replaces the meeting that was to be held on Thursday, March 16, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Elise Rabin, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to the Director Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E, to the Director Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective research and development program in the field of electron devices. 

The Working Group B meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the military proposes to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The microelectronics area includes such programs on semiconductor materials, integrated circuits, charge coupled devices and memories. The review will include classified program details throughout. 

In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. § 10(d)(1994)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public. 

      ( print page 20437)    
Dated: April 11, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 00-9415 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### Karen Fiore, Appellant, v William Reimer et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 652]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), dated June 10, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant William Reimer, and the separate motion of the defendants Elaine White and Robert White, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In support of their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that as a result of the subject accident, her left knee sustained certain injuries. The defendants submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the knee did not constitute a serious injury *1000within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herman Washington, Appellant.

— Kane, J. P.

A review of the record supports County Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion. Initially, the record clearly indicates that the conversation between defendant and Officer Cathy Evans was noncustodial in nature. Officer Evans simply responded to the scene of a traffic accident and conducted appropriate inquiry. Secondly, following his arrest, defendant was given his rights and voluntarily waived those rights. In fact, defendant himself admitted at trial that he consented to the making of the videotape and to taking the breathalyzer test. The record, including defendant’s own testimony, does not support his contention on appeal that he was too intoxicated to knowingly waive his rights.

The verdict is adequately supported by the record and we perceive no reason to disturb defendant’s sentence *(see, People*
      *938
      *v Dittmar,*41 AD2d 788). We note that County Court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms in county jail and allowed him to continue his education by granting permission for his release to attend classes at Corning Community College. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51157 c/w No. 04-51159 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAYMUNDO ALCALA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:02-CR-1410-ALL

-------------------- Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Raymundo AlcalaChavez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.No. -2-
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20830-20831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9586]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Boundary Revision; Rocky Mountain National Park

AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of boundary revision, Rocky Mountain National Park.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a revision of the boundary of Rocky 
Mountain National Park to include two parcels donated by Rocky Mountain 
National Park Associates, Inc. The National Park Service has determined 
that this boundary revision is necessary for the proper preservation 
and protection of the National Park.

DATES: The effective date of this Order is the April 18, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Rocky Mountain 
National Park, at the above address or by telephone at 970-586-1399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 16 U.S.C. 4601-9(c)(1) authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior to make this boundary revision. This boundary 
adjustment will add two parcels of land comprised of 28.33 acres and 
18.19 acres to Rocky Mountain National Park in Larimer County, 
Colorado.
    The above parcels are depicted as tract numbers 06-142 and 07-152 
on land acquisition map, segments 6 and 7, having drawing number 121/
92,002, sheet 7 and 8 of 11. The map is on file at the National Park 
Service, Intermountain Land Resources Program

[[Page 20831]]

Center, and at the Office of the Superintendent, Rocky Mountain 
National Park.

    Dated: February 2, 2000.
Karen P. Wade,
Director, Intermountain Region.
[FR Doc. 00-9586 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Terrence Norman Fern, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Petsec Energy Ltd;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this 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
      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 periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) 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 annual 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 period covered
            by the 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 officers 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 function):

      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 over financial reporting;

Date: June 28, 2005

/s/ Terrence Norman Fern
------------------------------

Terrence Norman Fern
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.4

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                          OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION


William R. Parker and Flo Reinhardt certify that:

1.   They are the President and Assistant Secretary, respectively, of Saddleback
     Investment Services, Inc., a California Corporation.

2.   Article IV of the articles of incorporation of this corporation is amended
     to read as follows:

                                       IV

          The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares of stock;
          the total number of which this corporation is authorized to issue is
          Three Hundred Thousand (300,000), of which Two Hundred Thousand
          (200,000) shares shall be common stock, no par value, and One Hundred
          Thousand (100,000) shares shall be preferred stock, no par value.

          The preferred stock may be issued from time to time in one or more
          series. The board of directors is authorized to designate and to fix
          the number of shares of any such series of preferred stock and to
          determine and alter the rights, privileges, preferences and
          restrictions granted to or imposed upon any wholly unissued series of
          preferred stock. The board of directors, within the limits stated in
          the resolution of the board of directors originally fixing the number
          of shares constituting any series, may increase or decrease (but not
          below the number of shares of such series then outstanding) the number
          of shares of any series subsequent to the issue of that series.

          The Corporation shall, from time to time, in accordance with the laws
          of the State of California increase the authorized amount of its
          common stock, if at any time the number of shares of common stock
          remaining unissued and available for issuance shall not be sufficient
          to permit conversion of the preferred stock.

3.   The foregoing amendment of articles of incorporation has been duly approved
     by the board of directors.

4.   The foregoing amendment of articles of incorporation has been duly approved
     by the required vote of shareholders in accordance with Section 902 of the
     Corporations Code. The total number of outstanding shares of the
     corporation is 10,000. The number of shares voting in favor of amendment
     equaled or exceeded the vote required. The percentage vote required was
     more than 50%.

We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the matters set forth in this certificate are true and correct
of our own knowledge.

Date:  September 14, 2001.

                                            /s/ William R. Parker
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            William R. Parker, President


                                            /s/ Flo Reinhardt
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Flo Reinhardt, Assistant Secretary
SILVER JACK RESERVOIRLatitude: 38.227Longitude: -107.54Elevation: 8934

SILVER JACK RESERVOIR

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



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Idarado Site Page...



Idarado

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red Mountain Pass Site Page...



Red Mountain Pass