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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SUPERGEN,
INC. DECEMBER 31, 1999 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                          22,546
<SECURITIES>                                     5,008
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                      1,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,555
<PP&E>                                           4,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,543
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       138,486
<OTHER-SE>                                       (835)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,478
<SALES>                                          4,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,744
<CGS>                                            2,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (36,985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (36,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (36,985)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.58)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.29
 CONSENT OF D. KAPPES
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled Technical Report
NI 43-101F1 Los Filos Project, Mexico (the Los Filos Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Los Filos Report and the Los Filos
Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ Daniel W. KappesName:
    Daniel W. Kappes, P. Eng., B.Sc., M.Sc.President  Kappes, Cassiday & Associates
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18855]



[[Page 55425]]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts


Arts Advisory Panel--Notice of Change

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that the October 
3, 2005 teleconference meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel 
(AccessAbility) to the National Council on the Arts, previously 
announced as 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. e.d.t., will instead be held from 11 a.m. 
to 1 p.m. As announced, this meeting will be closed.
    Closed meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, 
evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the 
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as 
amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In 
accordance with the determination of the Chairman of April 8, 2005, 
these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection 
(c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, 
National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/
682-5691.

    Dated:September 14, 2005.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 05-18855 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10610

Summary Calendar

Fidel Salazar, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Lannette Linthicum; Philip Keiser; Cynthia Jumper; F. 

Parker Hudson, III; Jeffrey K. Beeson; Erin A. Wyrick; 

John W. Burruss; Robert Greenberg; Dee A. 

Budgewater; Preston Johnson, Jr., 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:19-CV-124

Before Stewart, Haynes, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Fidel Salazar, former Texas prisoner # 1506617, appeals the dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 28 U.S.C. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 29, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10610 Document: 00516412489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2022
No. 21-10610

2

§ 1915A, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). He argued 

that numerous defendants, including Dr. Melonie Sandoval and Correctional 

Managed Health Care Committee (CMHCC), were deliberately indifferent 

to Salazar’s serious medical needs when he was incarcerated by refusing to 

provide him with treatment for Hepatitis C. Salazar also moves for 

appointment of counsel.

Salazar contends that the district court erred in dismissing his suit 

against Melonie Sandoval because her refusal to provide treatment for 

Salazar’s Hepatitis C violated his Eighth Amendment rights. However, we 

lack jurisdiction to consider this claim because Salazar filed an untimely 

notice of appeal from that partial final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13, 16-17 (2017);

Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Serv’g, L.L.C., 916 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 2019);

Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., 170 F.3d 536, 538-39 

(5th Cir. 1999); Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 1993).

In addition, to the extent Salazar challenges the dismissal of his claims 

against the CMHCC defendants, he has abandoned that argument by failing 

to raise it in his opening brief to this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas 

Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part with 

respect to Salazar’s claims against the CMHCC defendants and the appeal is 

DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction with respect to his claims 

against Sandoval. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as 

unnecessary as Salazar retained counsel after filing the motion.

Case: 21-10610 Document: 00516412489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2022
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128870 & (17) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

KENNETH R. BESSINGER, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 128870 

 COA: 259974 
 WCAC: 04-000419 

OUR LADY OF GOOD COUNSEL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of January 31, 2006, this case was remanded to the Workers’ 

Compensation Appellate Commission for a supplemental opinion. On order of the Court, 

the opinion having been received, the application for leave to appeal the April 29, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the prior decisions of the worker’s 

compensation tribunals and we REMAND this case to the Board of Magistrates for a new 

hearing and a decision consistent with this Court’s decision in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 

481 Mich 266 (2008). The plaintiff’s current entitlement to benefits shall continue until a 

new decision is issued by the Board. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

WEAVER, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the order vacating the decisions of the workers’ compensation 

tribunals and remanding this case to the Board of Magistrates for a new hearing and 

decision consistent with this Court’s decision in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 

(2008). 

Because I dissented from the majority opinion in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, I vote to 

grant leave to appeal in this case to consider whether a majority of this Court reached the 

correct decision in Stokes.

 KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

0923 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2008 

Clerk
Linda M. Bennett, Executrix for Elizabeth H. Maynard, Deceased, Lisa M. Bennett, Personally on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hospice & Palliative Care Center of Alamance-Caswell, Community Home Care and Hospice, LLC, The Oaks of Alamance, LLC, Jeffrey Brown, M.D., Beth Hodges, M.D., does 1-10, inclusive

No. 116P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

*375Ms. Linda M. Bennett, Pro se.

Ms. Elizabeth P. McCullough, Attorney at Law, For Hodges, Beth (M.D.).

Mr. Norman F. Klick, Jr., Attorney at Law, For The Oaks of Alamance, LLC.

Mr. H. Lee Davis, Jr., Ms. Ann C. Rowe, Attorneys at Law, For Hospice & Palliative Care Center Of Alamance-Caswell, et al.

Mr. Barry S. Cobb, Attorney at Law, For Community Home Care And Hospice, LLC.

Ms. Kelly A. Brewer, Mr. Nathan D. Childs, Attorneys at Law.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 12th of April 2016 by Defendants 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
S. 801

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, California, as the 

‘‘Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The United States courthouse bordered by O Street, P Street, 

Tulare Street, and Capitol Street in Fresno, California, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse 

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

‘‘Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
##### 



1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
C. Kevin McArthurC. Kevin McArthurPresident and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Lindsay HallLindsay HallExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

Mary M. Johnston

 Judge

New Castle County Courthouse

500 North King Street, Suite 10400

Wilmington, DE 19801-3733

Telephone (302) 255-0668

December 4, 2014

Blake A. Bennett, Esquire

Cooch & Taylor, P.A.

The Brandywine Building

1000 West Street, 10th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Michael P. Kelly, Esquire

McCarter & English

Renaissance Centre

405 North King Street, 8th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: PICA v. Hewlett-Packard Company

C. A. No. N12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD

Dear Counsel:

I am considering Hewlett-Packard’s Motion for Expedited Limited Relief from

Judgment or Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b) and Hewlett-Packard’s Motion, Pursuant

to Rule 62, to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Resolution of Motions and PostTrial Appeal (Hewlett-Packard’s Judgment Motions”). 

The Order entered November 13, 3014 clearly contemplated that the Court

would retain jurisdiction, pending resolution of the 5 enumerated Motions. I am not

persuaded that there is any substantivedistinction between orders entered under Rules

54(b) and 58(1). Rule 58(1) is explicitly subject to the provisions of Rule 54(b).
However, it is in the interest of all parties to avoid any potential procedural

quagmire. The logical path forward is to resolve the outstanding post-trial motions

without divesting the Superior Court of jurisdiction through a premature appeal. 

PICA shall file its response to Hewlett-Packard’s Judgment Motions by

December 10, 2015. Specifically, what is PICA’s position on the propriety of a stay

of execution of the judgment, on the condition of a supercedeas bond? Obviously,

the best result would be if the parties can reach an agreement that preserves appellate

rights, as well as orderly presentation of post-trial motions. 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Mary M. Johnston___

Judge Mary M. Johnston
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF AUGUST 19, 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD75961 Preston K. Watts vs. State of Missouri

WD76936 James G. Davies vs. Beatrice W. Harris-Davies

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD76350 State of Missouri vs. Johnny Rucker
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         956,000                 956,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,992,000               9,992,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,196,000              12,196,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,744,000              31,744,000
<PP&E>                                       5,620,000               5,620,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,201,000              59,201,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,927,000              15,927,000
<BONDS>                                     15,742,000              15,742,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    27,719,000              27,719,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,829,000)             (1,829,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                59,201,000              59,201,000
<SALES>                                     13,434,000              24,916,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,434,000              24,916,000
<CGS>                                        6,488,000              11,344,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,488,000              11,344,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               425,000             (1,852,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             702,000               1,283,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,505,000)             (3,367,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (826,000)               (794,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,538,000)             (2,299,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,538,000)             (2,299,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)                   (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)                   (.12)
        

</TABLE>
In the Matter of J.S.F., H.B.G., A.L.G.

No. COA16-40.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Luis DOMINGUEZ.

No. 15P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Jose Luis Dominguez, Lumberton, for Dominguez, Jose Luis.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 14th of January 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

JACKSON, J. recused.
# C_2012006EN.01000902.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Kendrion v Commission

(Case T-54/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Economic entity - Joint and several liability - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Fines - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Real ability to pay)

2012/C 6/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kendrion NV (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented initially by: P. Glazener and C. Meijer, then by P. Glazener and L. Haasbeek, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in so far as it is addressed to the applicant, concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and application for annulment or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kendrion NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kendrion NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
EX-10.3






JOINDER TO PROMISSORY NOTE




As of November 15, 2010




Reference is made to a certain Promissory Note dated as of July 19, 2010 in the maximum
aggregate principal amount of TWENTY FIVE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($25,000,000.00) (as the same
may hereafter be amended, modified, supplemented or restated, the “Note”) made by the
entities listed on Schedule 1 hereto and payable to BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national
banking association. Each of the terms, conditions and definitions of said Note is specifically
incorporated herein by reference.



For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned (collectively, the “Additional Borrower”) executes this
Joinder to Promissory Note (this “Joinder”) in order to join as maker of said Note and as a
“Borrower” thereunder, agreeing to be bound, jointly and severally, by all and singular the terms
thereof.



1. Joinder and Assumption of Obligations. Effective as of the date of this Joinder,
the Additional Borrower hereby acknowledges that the Additional Borrower has received and reviewed
a copy of the Note, and hereby acknowledges, covenants, and agrees to:



(a) join in the execution of, and become a party to, the Note as a maker and Borrower
thereunder, as indicated with its signature below;



(b) be bound by all representations, warranties, covenants, agreements, liabilities and
acknowledgments of each existing Borrower under the Note and the other Loan Documents, in each
case, with the same force and effect as if such Additional Borrower was a signatory to the Note and
the other Loan Documents and was expressly named as a maker or Borrower therein; and



(c) assume all rights and interests and perform all applicable duties and Obligations of the
existing Borrower under the Note and the other Loan Documents, jointly and severally with each
existing Borrower.



This Joinder shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of the State of
Illinois.



[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Joinder as of the
date first above written.



ADDITIONAL BORROWER:



G&E HC REIT II SYLVA MOB, LLC,



a Delaware limited liability company



By: Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT II Holdings, LP,


a Delaware limited partnership, its sole Member



By: Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT II, Inc.,





a Maryland corporation, its general partner



By: /s/ Danny Prosky

Name: Danny Prosky

Title: President and Chief Operating Officer