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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements of Telecommunications Income Fund XI, L.P. as of
June 30, 2000, and the six months ended 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>                                         324,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,172,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (278,419)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,218,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          818,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,400,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,218,990
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               700,955
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               251,828
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                38,562
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                362,115
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            362,115
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   362,115
<EPS-BASIC>                                      28.76<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    28.76<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Net Income (Loss) per Partnership Unit
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Axsys Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David A. Almeida, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



February 19,
2008

|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/DAVID A. ALMEIDA     |  | 
|David A. Almeida        |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
## **EXHIBIT23.1**

## ** **

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Arden Group, Inc. and ConsolidatedSubsidiaries

 

We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Arden Group, Inc. for the year ended December 29, 2007and to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-46704and 333-69787) of Arden Group, Inc. of our report dated March 5, 2008 with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, appearing in Item 8 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

/s/ Moss Adams LLP

 

**MOSS ADAMS LLP**

Los Angeles, California

March 5, 2008

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Jeff M. Framer, Chief Financial Officer of Image Entertainment, Inc.,certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Image Entertainment, Inc.;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a.             Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaryand joint venture, is made known to us by others, within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and       presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation;

c.             Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

a.             Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  |   June 16, 2005 | /s/ JEFF M. FRAMER      |
|--------|--------------------------------|-------------------------|
|   |                           | Jeff M. Framer          |
|   |                           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 24-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 24-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 24-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 24-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10676]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    <IT>Name: <RM>Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and 
Environmental Systems (1189).
    <IT>Date/Time: <RM>May 15, 2001, 8:30 am-5 pm.
    <IT>Place: <RM>National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Room 360, Arlington, VA.
    <IT>Type of Meeting: <RM>Closed.
    <IT>Contact Person: <RM>Fred Thompson, Program Director, 
Environmental Technology Program, Division of Bioengineering and 
Environmental Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 292-8320.
    <IT>Purpose of Meeting: <RM>To provide advice and 
recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial 
support.
    <IT>Agenda: <RM>To review and evaluate unsolicited proposals and 
proposals received under the Information Technology Research (ITR) 
Program Solicitation (Announcement Number NSF 00-126), as part of 
the selection process for awards.
    <IT>Reason for Closing: <RM>The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and person 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) or the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.


    Dated: April 25, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-10676 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11120]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID-933-1430-DET; IDI-14647]


Public Land Order No. 7484; Revocation of a Bureau of Land 
Management Order dated January 28, 1952; Idaho

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public land order.

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

SUMMARY: This order revokes a Bureau of Land Management order as it 
affects the remaining public lands withdrawn for the Bureau of 
Reclamation's Mountain Home Reclamation Project. The lands are no 
longer needed for the purposes for which they were withdrawn and the 
revocation is needed to consummate a pending land exchange. This action 
will open the lands to surface entry and mining, unless included in 
other segregations of record. The lands have been and will remain open 
to mineral leasing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie Simmons, BLM Idaho State 
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, 208-373-3867.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:
    1. The Bureau of Land Management Order dated January 28, 1952, 
which withdrew public lands for the Bureau of Reclamation's Mountain 
Home Reclamation Project, is hereby revoked in its entirety.
    2. At 9 a.m. on June 4, 2001, the lands described in paragraph 1 
will be opened to the operation of the public land laws generally, 
subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing 
withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of 
applicable law. All valid applications received at or prior to 9 a.m. 
on June 4, 2001, shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that 
time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in the order of 
filing.
    3. At 9 a.m. on June 4, 2001, the lands described in paragraph 1 
will be opened to location and entry under the United States mining 
laws, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing 
withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of 
applicable law. Appropriation of any of the lands described in this 
order under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of 
restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation, 
including attempted adverse possession are governed by State law where 
not in conflict with Federal law. The Bureau of Land Management will 
not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights 
since Congress has provided for such determinations in local courts.

    Dated: April 12, 2001.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 01-11120 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
#### WOLLENSAK OPTICAL CO. v. ILEX OPTICAL CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 11, 1913.)

No. 21.

Patents (§ 328*)—Validity and Infringement—Photographic Shutter.

Tbe Wollensak patents, No. 679,134 and No. 700,878, both relating to photographic shutters, narrowly construed, as they must be in view of the prior art, *held*not infringed.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York.

Suit in equity by the Wollensak Optical Company against the Ilex Optical Company. Decree for defendant;* and complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

For opinion below, see 199 Fed. 923.

This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Western District of New York, which dismissed a bill for alleged infringement of two U. S. patents. The patents are Nos. *679,-*134 and 700,878, both granted to Andrew Wollensak and both relating to photographic shutters. The opinion of the District Judge will be found in 199 Fed. 923.

C. Schuyler Davis, of Rochester, N. Y. (Davis & Dorsey, of Rochester, N. Y., of counsel), for appellant.

H. H. Simms, of Rochester, N. Y., and J. Edgar Bull, of New York City, for appellee.

Before EACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. *&*Am. Dig3.1997 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

It is manifest that this is a crowded art and that there can be no broad range of equivalents. All that the first patent shows is an arrangement inter sese of four operating terminals, all integral with the so-called master-lever. Assuming .that patentee’s arrangement was a novel one and that it accomplished sufficient improvement to sustain a patent, it is not infringed by an arrangement, which, as defendant’s does, omits one of these four parts.

As to the second patent. In such a crowded art it must be confined to the details shown and embodied in the claims. We concur in Judge Hazel’s disposition of the cause and see no reason to add anything to his discussion.

The decree is affirmed with costs.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: WALMART, INC. AND WAL

MART STORES TEXAS, LLC

,

Relator s

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 1 91

- C V

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Relators’ motion for emergency relief requesting that the Court

stay enforcement of the trial court’s September 8, 2020, discovery order in trial court cause number

2019DCV3471 until this Court can render a decision on Relators’ petition for a writ of mandamus.

Relators’ motion for emergency relief is GRANTED. The discovery order is hereby stayed

pending a decision on this petition for a writ of man damus or further orders from this Court.

The Court has determined that it will not take any action on Relators’ petition for a writ of

mandamus pending a response on the merits from the Real Parties in Interest. The response from

the Real Parties in Intere st is requested to be filed by October 29, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of September

, 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JOSEPH DINGLER, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

JOHN G. ROBERTS, Chief Justice of the 

United States, et al., 

 Respondents. 

 Civil Action No. 18-527 (RDM) 

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Joseph Dingler, proceeding pro se, has filed a “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad 

Testificandum.” See Dkt. 1. A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is “the common law 

writ for the production of witnesses who are confined in jail and who are thus beyond the reach 

of the ordinary subpoena.” Neufield v. United States, 118 F.2d 375, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1941). 

Petitioner does seek the production of any witness. Instead, he claims that the Chief Justice of 

the United States and the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court “denied Petitioner [a]ccess to US 

jurisdiction,” Dkt. 1 at 11; that their “restraints on liberty are severe,” id. at 12; that there has 

been “judicial over-reach by unconstitutional legislation,” id. at 13; that an “illiberal 

construction [has been] applied, [leaving] no access to justice,” id. at 18; and that he has a 

“right of access under the petition clause,” id. at 21. As Dingler’s statement of facts explains, 

these claims all derive from the Supreme Court’s denial of—or failure to accept—his petitions 

for writs of certiorari and mandamus. Dkt. 1 at 2–4. This Court has no jurisdiction to consider 

challenges to the Supreme Court’s exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, see, e.g., In re 

Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (holding that a similar claim was barred for lack of 
2 

subject matter jurisdiction); id. (“We are aware of no authority for the proposition that a lower

court may compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action.”); Po Kee Wong v. U.S. 

Sol. Gen., 839 F. Supp. 2d 130, 138 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Plaintiff has identified no jurisdictional 

basis under which this Court would have authority to review the Supreme 

Court’s denial of certiorari; indeed, there is none.”), or “to correct [any] irregularities of [the 

Clerk of the Supreme Court] and compel him to perform his duty,” In re Marin, 956 F.2d at 

340 (quoting Griffin v. Thompson, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 244, 257 (1844)); Hirsch v. Harris, No. 

15-cv-488, 2015 WL 1540490, at *1 (D.D.C. April 16, 2015) (same). 

The Court will, accordingly, DISMISS this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

and will DENY Petitioner’s motion for ECF password, Dkt. 2. 

A separate order will issue. 

 /s/ Randolph D. Moss 

 RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

 United States District Judge 

 

Date: March 28, 2018
#### S. Lee Cabe, Appellant-Respondent, v Aetna Casualty *&*Surety Company, Respondent-Appellant.

In an action to recover under a fire insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Patsalos, J.), dated April 6, 1988, as denied his cross motion to compel the defendant to accept his supplemental bill of particulars and information concerning experts, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from by the defendant, on the law, without costs or disburse-*654merits, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff’s residence, which was covered by a homeowners insurance policy issued by the defendant, suffered a fire on the morning of May 30, 1985. The policy contained provisions requiring the insured to provide information to the insurer on request. Although the plaintiff submitted to an examination under oath on July 31, 1985, and agreed to provide the defendant with certain requested documents and records deemed material and relevant by the defendant, he failed to supply the information despite repeated requests that he do so. The last request by the defendant explicitly advised the plaintiff that his failure to provide the material would be considered a breach of the policy. In May of 1986, the defendant finally notified the plaintiff that it was denying coverage due, *inter alia,*to his continued refusal to cooperate as required by the policy.

Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s continued failure, without explanation or excuse, to provide the requested information constituted a material breach of the policy precluding recovery by the plaintiff *(see, Williams v American Home Assur. Co.,*97 AD2d 707, *affd*62 NY2d 953; *Averbuch v Home Ins. Co.,*114 AD2d 827; *Pogo Holding Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*73 AD2d 605). The mere fact that the defendant participated in pretrial discovery pursuant to CPLR article 31 did not act as a waiver by the defendant of the right to assert the plaintiff’s breach of the cooperation provisions of the insurance policy as a defense to the action *(see, Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*76 AD2d 759, *affd*53 NY2d 835; *Abudayeh v Fair Plan Ins. Co.,*105 AD2d 764; *see also, Soltex Thread Co. v Rueff Bros.,*111 AD2d 84).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the other issues raised by the plaintiff. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cr-00553-BSJ     Document 8      Filed 03/28/2007     Page 1 of 1
#                                                                         U.S. Army Assault Helicopters Conduct Deck Landings on USNS Dahl                                                                    

##### by Grady T. Fontana

11 March 2024

                U.S. Army UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter with 2nd Battalion, 2nd Aviation Regiment, 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade takes off from prepositioning ship USNS Dahl (T-AKR 312), March 7. (Courtesy photo)            

                U.S. Army Assault Helicopters Conduct Deck Landings on USNS Dahl            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Grady Fontana

VIRIN: 240307-N-IX266-1002

Tags:
**MSCFE
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 Agriculture

###### Rural Housing Service 

# AGENCY:

Rural Housing Service (RHS), USDA. 

# ACTION:

Correction. 

# SUMMARY:

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) corrects a notice published December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81650). This action is taken to correct the authorized purposes of section 538 guaranteed loans by eliminating the requirement that acquisition loans result in the creation of new units. 

Accordingly, the notice published December 26, 2000, (65 FR 81650-81656), is corrected as follows: 

On page 81650 in the third column, Item I, “Purpose and Program Summary,” the fourth sentence should read “Qualified lenders will be authorized to originate, underwrite, and close loans for multi-family housing projects requiring new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of at least $15,000 per unit.” 

Dated: April 17, 2001. 

James C. Alsop, 

Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. 

[FR Doc. 01-10900 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-XV-U