alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000910632

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          7,003,236
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  83,089,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                      208,570
<INVENTORY>                                       145,017
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                         19,371,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,272,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                108,872,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                        74,974,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,148,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  108,872,294
<SALES>                                         7,583,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,583,022
<CGS>                                           1,941,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,766,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  450,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,581,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (157,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.41)
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-10-00079-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

KAREN A. GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

ARTURO E. GARCIA, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 444th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Karen A. Garcia, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 

444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2008-12-6772-H. On 

March 11, 2010, this Court abated and remanded this appeal to the trial court for further 

proceedings in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a. Appellant has filed 

a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that she no longer wishes to pursue this 
2

appeal. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we 

REINSTATE the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against 

the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, 

the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at 

appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will 

issue forthwith. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

20th day of May, 2010.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Dov Lautman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Delta Galil Industries
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 company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 company 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
          company, 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 company'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 company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of company'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 company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial data; and

<PAGE>

     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: June 28, 2006


    /S/ DOV LAUTMAN
---------------------------
Dov Lautman
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
Kazi BOWLES, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

No. 18M156.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Motion for leave to proceed as veteran denied.
Sergio Louis TREVINO, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-6946.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.0

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
The Keith Companies, Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 33-83097) on Form S-8 of The Keith Companies, Inc. of our report dated
February 14, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The Keith
Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity (deficit), and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form
10-K of The Keith Companies, Inc.


                                              /s/ KPMG LLP
                                              --------------
                                                  KPMG LLP

Orange County, California
April 2, 2001
#### Louis R. KOERNER, Sr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 78-1290.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 11, 1981.

Koerner, Babst & Lambert, Louis R. Koerner, Jr., Terry A. Bell, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, Peter Frank Liberto, Lemle, Kelleher, Kohl-meyer & Matthews, David L. Campbell, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In accordance with the order and judgment of the United States Supreme Court in this cause, dated June 8, 1981, —— U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2281, 68 L.Ed.2d 803, reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with costs, and remanding the cause to the Court of Appeals, it is ordered and adjudged that the decision of this Court in this cause dated April 7, 1981, is vacated. 615 F.2d 191. The judgment of the district court, 444 F.Supp. 334, is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for any further proceedings in conformity with the opinion and judgment of the United States Supreme Court.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71071

Agency No. A037-803-987

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Jose Alfredo Rodriguez-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

MAR 16 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71071

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d

889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rodriguez-Perez’s motion

to reopen as untimely because it was filed over 90 days after the BIA’s final order,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and because Rodriguez-Perez failed to establish the

due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1663 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1663

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 6, 1999

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To recognize National Medal of Honor sites in California, Indiana, and 
                            South Carolina.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Medal of Honor Memorial 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration 
        which the Nation bestows.
            (2) The Medal of Honor is the only military decoration 
        given in the name of Congress, and therefore on behalf of the 
        people of the United States.
            (3) The Congressional Medal of Honor Society was 
        established by an Act of Congress in 1958, and continues to 
        protect, uphold, and preserve the dignity, honor, and name of 
        the Medal of Honor and of the individual recipients of the 
        Medal of Honor.
            (4) The Congressional Medal of Honor Society is composed 
        solely of recipients of the Medal of Honor.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SITES.

    (a) Recognition.--The following sites to honor recipients of the 
Medal of Honor are hereby recognized as National Medal of Honor sites:
            (1) Riverside, california.--The memorial under construction 
        at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California, to 
        be dedicated on November 5, 1999.
            (2) Indianapolis, indiana.--The memorial at the White River 
        State Park in Indianapolis, Indiana, dedicated on May 28, 1999.
            (3) Mount pleasant, south carolina.--The Congressional 
        Medal of Honor Museum at Patriots Point in Mount Pleasant, 
        South Carolina, currently situated on the ex-U.S.S. Yorktown 
        (CV-6).
    (b) Interpretation.--This section shall not be construed to require 
or permit Federal funds (other than any provided for as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act) to be expended for any purpose related to 
the sites recognized in subsection (a).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 5, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Vincent Craig MOSLEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5281.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Ulric JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1436.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

*2730Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Donald Ray BOLES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9006.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      391
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (42)
<INVENTORY>                                        109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   704
<PP&E>                                           7,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,027)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              889
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,627
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   316
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,644)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,644)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.67)


</TABLE>
Mitzi JOHANKNECHT, Sheriff, King County, Washington, petitioner, v. Eva MOORE, et al.

No. 18-1056.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

*2616Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Peter B. Bedford, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bedford Property Investors, Inc.;



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 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 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 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 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 control over financial reporting.







Date:  August 9, 2004

/s/ Peter B. Bedford

Peter B. Bedford

Chief Executive Officer
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 WILLIAM BIRKLEY,

8 Plaintiff-Appellant,

9 v. NO. 30,832

10 JEFFERY NORTHUP,

11 Defendant-Appellee.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY

13 Sam B. Sanchez, District Judge

14 William Birkley

15 Albuquerque, NM

16 Pro se Appellant

17 Baker Law Office, LLC

18 Adam S. Baker

19 Taos, NM

20 for Appellee

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION

22 VIGIL, Judge.
2

1 Plaintiff appeals pro se from the district court’s September 14, 2010 “order

2 denying motion to vacate and reinstate” (order). (Emphasis omitted.) [RP 64] Our

3 notice proposed to dismiss and Plaintiff filed a timely memorandum in opposition.

4 We are unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments and therefore dismiss. 

5 As set forth in our notice, subsequent to entry of the order and prior to the filing

6 of his notice of appeal, [RP 68] Plaintiff filed a September 23, 2010, “request for

7 specific findings of fact and conclusions of law” (request). (Emphasis omitted.) [RP

8 65] We view this request as tantamount to a motion for reconsideration. See

9 generally NMSA 1978, § 39-1-1 (1953). If the district court granted Plaintiff’s

10 requested conclusion that the case be reinstated, [RP 67] then it would be affording

11 Plaintiff relief from its order. Because the district court has not yet ruled on

12 Defendant’s post-judgment motion, we dismiss for lack of a final judgment. See

13 Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 6, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d

14 675 (holding that because resolution of the post-judgment motion could alter, amend,

15 or moot the order that is challenged, the order is not final and the appeal is premature).

16 We note that upon our dismissal for lack of finality, the district court will have

17 jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s post-judgment request. While Plaintiff expresses

18 frustration that this Court does not address the merits of his appeal, [MIO 1-4]
1 Plaintiff’s act of filing the post-judgment motion precludes this Court from doing so.

2 Based on our notice and on the foregoing discussion, we dismiss for lack of

3 finality. 

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 _______________________________

6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

7 WE CONCUR:

8 _________________________________

9 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

10

11 _________________________________

12 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge