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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated financial statements of Rofin-Sinar Technologies
Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended September 30, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          36,805
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,207
<INVENTORY>                                     40,314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,205
<PP&E>                                          40,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,471
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,061
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,820
<SALES>                                        124,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,024
<CGS>                                           82,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   182
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,875
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,633
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,633
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32


</TABLE>
STATE v. HARRIS.

No. COA05-1526.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Brunswick (04CRS55826, 04CRS55827, 04CRS55935, 04CRS56032, 04CRS56121, 04CRS56183, 04CRS56184, 04CRS56185).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. FORD

No. COA05-774

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Robeson (01CRS16412, 01CRS16413, 01CRS16414, 01CRS16415, 01CRS16418, 02CRS498).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  balance sheet of  MidAmerican  Energy  Company as of September 30,
1997, and the related  consolidated  statements of income and cash flows for the
nine months ended  September 30,  1997,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
 </LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000928576
<NAME>                        MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2,612,283
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    106,318
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         298,805
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       361,807
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 188,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,568,073
<COMMON>                                       563,544
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            433,798
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 997,342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                    31,765
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           969,175
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 131,100
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  77,730
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,210,961
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  3,568,073
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      1,203,139
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           67,753
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     964,598
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     1,032,351
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        170,788
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             6,258
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 177,046
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       69,745
<NET-INCOME>                                   107,301
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    5,249
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  102,052
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       91,500
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      57,868
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         278,146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2017097EN.01000101.xml

| 8.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 97/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 97/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/668

of 27 June 2016

on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Additional Protocol to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, Article 100(2), and Article 207 in conjunction with point (a)(v) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2015/1277 (2), the Additional Protocol to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (‘the Additional Protocol’) has been signed, subject to its conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2015/1277 (2), the Additional Protocol to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (‘the Additional Protocol’) has been signed, subject to its conclusion.

| (2) | The Additional Protocol should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Additional Protocol should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Additional Protocol to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union is hereby approved on behalf of the Union and its Member States (3).

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 12(2) of the Additional Protocol.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2016.

For the Council

The President

M. VAN DAM

---

(1)  Consent of 7 June 2016.

1

(2)  (OJ L 204, 31.7.2015, p. 1).

2

(3)  The text of the Additional Protocol will be published together with the decision on its signature.

3

---
##### 



EXHIBIT (31.2)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a/15d OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (registrant);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)
    
    (omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238);(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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: November 8, 2006
    /s/ Wendy HargusWendy HargusInterim Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH ANTONETTI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. FOSTER; et al.,
Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 17187

D.C. No. 3:14

- cv
- 00495

- JAD

- VPC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24 , 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Joseph Antonetti appeals pro s e from the district
court’s order dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging numerous constitutional and statutory violations. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17187

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion

. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc. , 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Because the record shows that Antonetti stood on his first amended
complaint, the district court abused its discretion by converting the 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A dismissal of Antonetti’s claims into a Fed eral Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) sanction. See id . at 1064

- 65 (dismissal under Rule 41(b) is not appropriate
where the plaintiff makes an affirmative choice not to amend the complaint).
Nevertheless, dismissal of Antonetti’s first amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A was proper because the first amended complaint did not comply

with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 (a) and 20 (a)

. Se e Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v.
General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. , 637 F.3d 1047, 1058

- 59 (9t h Cir. 2011)
( describing requirements of Rule 8(a) ); Coughlin v. Rogers , 130 F.3d 1348, 1351
(9th Cir. 1997) ( describing requirements for permissive joinder of parties under

Rule 20(a) ); see also Resnick v. Hayes , 21 3 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting
forth standard of review).
The district court properly denied Antonetti’s motion for class certification
because, as a pro se litigant, Antonetti has no authority to represent anyone other

than himself. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States , 818 F. 2d 696, 697 (9th3 15

- 17187

Cir. 1987) (“A lthough a non

- attorney may appear in propria persona in his own
behalf, that privilege is p ersonal to him. . . . He has no authority to appear as an
attorney for others than himself. ” (citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Antonetti’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Antonetti failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

forth standard o f review and exceptional circumstances requirement for
appointment of counsel).

AFFIRMED.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40152

Summary Calendar

 

TONY CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THOMAS PRASIFKA, Senior Warden; RICHARD MORRIS, Major; MARY A

GONZALES, Head of Classification; S CULVER, Officer; HODGE,

Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(C-02-CV-372)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Tony Chavez (“Chavez”), Texas prisoner

#868675, appeals the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment

to the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning an

assault on Chavez by an inmate named Armon Shepard (“Shepard”).

Chavez alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to

a substantial risk of serious harm to him by reclassifying Shepard

to a lower security level and allowing him to share a cell with
2

Chavez. Chavez argues that he produced evidence sufficient to show

a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Warden Hodge was

deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to

him by overriding the state computer’s recommended security

classification for Shepard. Chavez also asserts that the

magistrate judge misconstrued his arguments when ruling on Warden

Hodge’s motion for summary judgment.

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo.

Guillory v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir.

1996). Shepard produced no direct evidence showing that Warden

Hodge made the inference that reclassifying Shepard created a

substantial risk of serious harm. Considering the summary judgment

evidence in the light most favorable to Chavez, it does not show

that the risk was so obvious that Warden Hodge must have made the

inference. This is insufficient to create a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether Warden Hodge was deliberately

indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Chavez. See

Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508, 514 (5th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the

magistrate judge did not err in granting summary judgment to Warden

Hodge on the merits and finding that Warden Hodge was entitled to

qualified immunity. See McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d

314, 326-27 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc). The record refutes Chavez’s

contention that the magistrate judge misconstrued his arguments.

As Chavez does not argue that the magistrate judge erred by

granting summary judgment to Warden Thomas Prasifka, Major Richard
3

Morris, Mary A. Gonzales, and S. Culver, he has waived all such

arguments. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
DAVIE v. DAVIE

S06F0956.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

September 18, 2006.

Judgments Affirmed Without Opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4

[BELDEN CDT LOGO]                                      BELDEN CDT INC.
                                                       7701 FORSYTH BOULEVARD
                                                       SUITE 800
                                                       ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63105
                                                       TELEPHONE: (314) 854-8000
                                                       FACSIMILE: (314) 854-8001

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

May 17, 2005

Mr. Richard K. Reece
21 Ballas Court
Town & Country, MO 63131

Re: Letter Agreement dated April 15, 2002

Dear Ricky:

The terms of the referenced letter agreement, dated as of April 15, 2002, are
amended as follows: Your Election Period will be six (6) months instead of
thirty (30) days.

BELDEN CDT INC.

By: /s/ Kevin L. Bloomfield
    -------------------------
    Kevin L. Bloomfield

Agreed:

    /s/ Richard K. Reece
    -------------------------
    Richard K. Reece
# C_2013134EN.01000901.xml

| 14.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/9

---

Commission Declaration on its role as supervisor of the organisation, administration and management of the .eu TLD by the Registry (1)

1

2013/C 134/05

The Commission may issue guidance to the Registry from time to time, in order to ensure the appropriate execution of the contract in line with the core policy requirements stated in the technical annex of the service concession contract between the European Union and the .eu TLD Registry.

---

(1)  Article 3.1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain (OJ L 113, 30.4.2002, p. 1).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          3,864,460
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                  0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               15,610,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    10,744,051
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          5,192,435
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            5,259,426
<LOANS>                                        51,879,654
<ALLOWANCE>                                       929,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 89,502,970
<DEPOSITS>                                     80,348,769
<SHORT-TERM>                                      410,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               574,623
<LONG-TERM>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        1,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,669,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 89,502,970
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 4,455,655
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 837,905
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  454,528
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                5,748,088
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              2,655,592
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,674,326
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           3,073,762
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     260,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                      0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    18,734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,526,493
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      1,526,493
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,026,338
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        3.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        3.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       4.51
<LOANS-NON>                                       866,785
<LOANS-PAST>                                        4,956
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                        0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   999,727
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  743,260
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      92,109
<RECOVERIES>                                       18,331
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 929,482
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              929,482
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                 0
        


</TABLE>
FRANCES L. AUSTIN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and PIEDMONT LAND CONSERVANCY v. CITY OF HIGH POINT.

No. 352P06

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of July 2006 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of August 2006.