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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          52,043
<SECURITIES>                                    52,737
<RECEIVABLES>                                  323,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,405
<PP&E>                                         349,760
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,055,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          282,554
<BONDS>                                        180,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         33
<COMMON>                                         1,035
<OTHER-SE>                                     567,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,055,105
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               570,493
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  509,678
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (4,659)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,750
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,690
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,060
<DISCONTINUED>                                     572
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,632
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Wings Michael GIBSON.

No. COA16-36.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**Rule 13a-14(a) Certification ofChief Executive Officer**

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patricia M. Newman, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Westaff, Inc. (the “registrant”);

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to take the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.              The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)              disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)             All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 22, 2006                 |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
| /s/ Patricia M. Newman                |   |
|                                  |
| Patricia M. Newman                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| Westaff, Inc.                         |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

----
# C_2008116EN.01000801.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-81/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/59/EC - Waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste)

(2008/C 116/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala and I. Pouli, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues — Commission declaration (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to develop, implement and approve waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) and Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to develop, implement and approve waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) and Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---
# C_2009006EN.01002401.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-406/06) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Invitation to tender concerning support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/EC - Rejection of a tender - Decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Claim for damages)

(2009/C 6/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for, first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 October 2006 to reject the applicant's offer in a call for tenders for support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), the Community independent transaction log (CITL), with technical maintenance and user support (OJ 2006 S 102), and an application for annulment of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 3, 2014

No. 04-14-00175-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.P., a Child,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-02469

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In this accelerated appeal of an order terminating Appellant’s parental rights, Appellant’s 

court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief in which counsel asserts there are no meritorious 

issues to raise on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re R.R., No. 04-

03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) 

(applying Anders procedure in a parental rights termination appeal). Counsel has informed 

Appellant of her right to file a pro se brief. The State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an 

appellee’s brief unless Appellant files a pro se brief.

If Appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER Appellant to do so within 

TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). If Appellant files a 

pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief not later than TWENTY DAYS after the date 

Appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of this 

court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Order entered April 30, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01158-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.B., II, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-18807

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 27, 2020 third motion for an extension 

of time to file his brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time 

to May 26, 2020. We caution appellant that further extension requests will be 

disfavored. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**249 CAF 14-01925**  PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF SHYANA C. BROUGHTON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
V ORDER
LARRY P. LIVINGSTON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C., BUFFALO (REGINA A. DELVECCHIO OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
AUDREY ROSE HERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Mary G. Carney, J.), entered August 18, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted the amended petition of petitioner seeking modification of a prior court order of custody and access. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court.

Entered: March 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 11, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11051

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-81153-CV-DMM

ARTIS ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

M. BURNS, 

Director of Health Services, 

DR. SCALONE, 

Dental Department Specialist, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 11, 2008)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

State prisoner Artis Robinson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s

sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint. The court dismissed

his claim on the basis of res judicata and for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, due to the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations

period. 

On appeal, Robinson submits copies of (1) the complaint he filed with the

district court in the present case, (2) his objection to summary judgment (which he

filed in the previous case, 9:05-cv-80861), and (3) grievance forms dated from

1999 to 2003 (which he filed with the Department of Corrections). He makes no

new arguments and presents no specific reasons for his appeal. Liberally

construed, his submission may be interpreted as an argument that neither res

judicata nor the statute of limitations bars his claim, as these were the district

court’s two bases for dismissing the present case. See Tannenbaum v. United

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less

stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be

liberally construed.”).

However, it is clear that res judicata bars this action and the district court

correctly found that Robinson delivered his complaint to prison officials after the
3

expiration of the statute of limitations period. 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008301EN.01006802.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/68

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008 — Duyster v Commission

(Case F-81/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/136)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 34.

1

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


<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
         the Consolidated Financial Statements of Maxcor Financial Group Inc.
         at and as of March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
         reference to such Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998  
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1998  
<CASH>                                            9,019,675  
<RECEIVABLES>                                       952,328 
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                       0 
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                     0 
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                               4,274,641 
<PP&E>                                           10,588,708 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   74,264,719 
<SHORT-TERM>                                      1,695,426 
<PAYABLES>                                          300,000 
<REPOS-SOLD>                                              0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                  851,037
<LONG-TERM>                                       6,231,259
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             11,331
<OTHER-SE>                                       30,795,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     74,264,719
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                   187,651
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                467,780
<COMMISSIONS>                                    39,124,825
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                             0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  220,744
<COMPENSATION>                                   27,015,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     593,710
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          593,710
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (804,290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.07)
                                                  


</TABLE>
In the Matter of L.J.M.

No. COA15-698.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51066

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-742-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Angel Rodriguez, Jr., has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
1161.

#### MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF SAVANNAH *v.*KILEY.

The evidence sustained the verdict. The exceptions to the charge present no reversible error.

*125Action for damages, from city court of Savannah. — Judge Freeman. February 18, 1908.

Argued July 2,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*Samuel B. Adams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Edmund H. Abrahams, Osborne & Lawrence,*contra.

Powell, J.

We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. Certain inaccuracies in the charge are complained of. There would be no profit in discussing these exceptions, as they present no point of general interest. They were carefully considered by Judge Freeman, the successor to Judge Norwood, who tried the case and who delivered the charge in question. The opinion filed by him in connection with the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial expresses the view entertained by us after our consideration of the same matters.

*Judgment affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997 is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              30                  11,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  48,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                    5000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,016                  64,460
<PP&E>                                          14,218                  33,750
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,465                  13,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,689                  85,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          467,368                 340,134
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       230,762                 157,812
<OTHER-SE>                                   (463,441)               (412,464)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,689                  85,482
<SALES>                                         66,422                  70,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,422                  70,769
<CGS>                                           57,230                  67,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,230                  57,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,753,537               3,413,149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,736,543)             (3,410,313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,736,543)             (3,410,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,736,543)             (3,410,313)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)                   (.01)


</TABLE>
null

410.76093
MUTTER v. BALL.

No. 150P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 25, 2016.

Jason Lee Mutter, Spruce Pine, for Mutter, Jason Lee.

Mike Ball, Superintendant, for Ball, Michael (Superintendent).

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for Ball, Michael (Superintendent).

Todd Williams, District Attorney.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of April 2016 by Petitioner to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of April 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Harold Lamont FLETCHER.

No. COA14-1312.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.