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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      14,253,828
<SECURITIES>                                61,016,318
<RECEIVABLES>                               45,776,520
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,084,573
<INVENTORY>                                  5,509,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           115,635,430
<PP&E>                                      15,178,586
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,030,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             340,904,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       45,757,306
<BONDS>                                    115,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       721,208
<OTHER-SE>                                 177,676,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               340,904,492
<SALES>                                      2,521,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,757,921
<CGS>                                       14,487,427
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,611,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            66,970,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               807,071
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (53,479,881)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (53,479,881)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (53,479,881)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.86)


</TABLE>
#### Zahra Shahram, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v St. Elizabeth School et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 643]

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered February 23, 2005. The order granted in part the motion of plaintiff Zahra Shahram to preclude.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal and cross appeal be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Zahra Shahram (plaintiff) in a motor vehicle accident in 1998. Plaintiff thereafter made a motion in limine seeking to preclude defendants from “utilizing [certain] information at trial,” including her bill of particulars *1378and amended bill of particulars from prior litigation wherein she sought damages for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident in 1990. According to plaintiff, her former attorney sent her only the verification pages for the respective bills of particulars and directed her to sign those pages in the presence of a notary public and return them to him. Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that part of the motion “conditionally,” i.e., on the condition that plaintiff testify at trial that she had not read the bill of particulars and amended bill of particulars. Inasmuch as the order herein “merely adjudicates the admissibility of evidence” and does not affect a substantial right, no appeal lies as of right from the order *(Scalp & Blade v Advest, Inc.,*309 AD2d 219, 224 [2003]; *see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]). Thus, the appeal and cross appeal must be dismissed *(see Vesperman v Wormser,*283 AD2d 637, 638 [2001]; *Chateau Rive Corp. v Enclave Dev. Assoc.,*283 AD2d 537 [2001]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-79,465-01

EX PARTE AL LETROY SMITH, Applicant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM CAUSE NO. 43,698-01-A IN THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT

POTTER COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

As I have discussed before, I thought instituting laches for writs of habeas corpus was

unfair and had no legal basis. Perez v. State, 398 S.W.3d 206, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)

(Meyers, J., dissenting). Laches was instituted as an equitable doctrine meant to prevent the

supposed hardship that the State might encounter in retrying an applicant if relief were

obtained. See BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1006 (10th ed. 2014). Perez, however, turned it

into an instrument to allow the State to prevent applicants from obtaining habeas hearings,
Smith dissent - Page 2

and ultimately, relief.

The majority in the present case further handicapped applicants by allowing sua

sponte consideration of laches without requiring the State to even argue that the doctrine

should be employed. Even though the State in this case did not assert that it needed laches

to prevent a hardship in retrial, the majority referred the case back to the trial judge to make

findings on Applicant’s reason for delay. From my reading of the majority opinion, it does

not seem that the judge’s findings were based on anything other than the applicant’s

statement of his understanding of his ability to file a writ. It is not based on any analysis of

prejudice the State may encounter in retrying the case. Therefore, I cannot agree with the

conclusion that Applicant should be laches-barred.

The majority’s action today is not only unfair, it is straight out mean. It is discouraging

to see how this court is continually moving toward limiting defendants’ rights that are both

statutorily and constitutionally guaranteed.

Because I believe that laches should not have been considered in Applicant’s case and

that we should have heard his application for a writ of habeas corpus, I respectfully dissent.

Meyers, J.

Filed: June 24, 2015

Publish
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Eden Bioscience Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Bradley S. Powell, 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:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  November
8, 2004

| | /s/ Bradley S. Powell                                             
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                   
| | Bradley S. Powell                                                 
| | Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer
  and Secretary
| |                                                                   

- 29 -

---

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 406 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 406

  To ensure local governments have the flexibility needed to enhance 
        decision-making regarding certain mass transit projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2007

 Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, 
 Mr. Bond, Mr. Burr, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
  Cornyn, Mr. Pryor, and Mrs. Lincoln) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure local governments have the flexibility needed to enhance 
        decision-making regarding certain mass transit projects.

    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 ``Transit System Flexibility 
Protection Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

    Section 5307(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the following:
                    ``(E) operating costs of equipment and facilities 
                for use in public transportation in an urbanized area 
                with a population of more than 200,000, if such public 
                transportation system operates less than 100 buses on 
                fixed-route service during peak service hours; and''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lee THACKER.

No. 351P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Robert Lee Thacker, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of November 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th day of March 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st day of May 2007 in this *159matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 21st day of September 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

EDMUNDS, J. recused.
BUREK v. MANCUSO.

No. COA07-591.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Dare (04CVS133).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6765

CRAIG W. EISERT , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
HAROLD W

. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:21

- cv - 00068

- MFU

- JCH )

Submitted : August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Craig W. Eisert , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Craig W. Eisert, a Virginia inmate, seeks to ap peal the district court’s order consolidating his two 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition s, conditionally filing the consolidated petition, and ordering Eisert to file a supplemental petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Eisert seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Eisert’s motion to appoint counsel and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1

MRS. FIELDS' ORIGINAL COOKIES, INC.
2855 East Cottonwood Parkway
Suite 400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121

March 28,
2002

Securities
and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

Mrs. Fields'
Original Cookies, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), has received a representation letter from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), the Company's
independent public accountants, in connection with the issuance of Andersen's audit report included within this filing on Form 10-K. In its letter, Andersen has represented to us
that its audits of the consolidated balance sheets of the Company and its subsidiaries as of December 29, 2001 and December 30, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholder's equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 29, 2001, were subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagements were conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audits, and appropriate availability of national office consultation. The availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen was not relevant to this engagement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed balance sheets and unaudited condensed statements of
income found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to
date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,062,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,138,000
<PP&E>                                       3,338,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,561,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,949,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,740,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,869,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,561,000 
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,000
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               200,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (122,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,886,000     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63 

</TABLE>
MINCEY-SMITH v. SMITH.

No. COA07-1325.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (06CVD6636).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 243/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 243/2014 of 7 March 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Bornheimer Spargel/Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim (PGI))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 243/2014                     

# of 7 March 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bornheimer Spargel/Spargel                        aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim (PGI))                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Bornheimer Spargel’/‘Spargel                              aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim’ was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Bornheimer Spargel’/‘Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 March 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.6.****Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed**U.K.

#### GERMANYU.K.

Bornheimer Spargel/Spargel aus dem Anbaugebiet Bornheim (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 286, 2.10.2013, p. 12.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WENDELL SIMPKINS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 486 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of April, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,491
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              74
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   270
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,230
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,727
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,396
<LOANS>                                         72,183
<ALLOWANCE>                                        457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,787
<DEPOSITS>                                      70,352
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                531
<LONG-TERM>                                     13,991
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  95,787
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,909
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  683
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    16
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,608
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,634
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,990
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,618
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       96
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    171
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         114
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       114
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.54
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       583
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   459
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      191
<RECOVERIES>                                       130
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  457
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            457
        

</TABLE>