alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03384-JCF Document 28 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03384-JCF Document 28 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### WILLIAMS v. BETHANY FIRE DEPT.

No. 327PA82.

Case below: 307 N.C. 430.

Petition by plaintiffs to rehear denied 8 March 1983.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS LEGEND  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COYOTE NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE 9 MONTHS  ENDED  DECEMBER  31,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFEREENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  APR-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                6795
<SECURITIES>                                          1180
<RECEIVABLES>                                          999
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                           3298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     13185
<PP&E>                                                1672
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       24523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 9019
<BONDS>                                               6676
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              8816
<OTHER-SE>                                            (501)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         24523
<SALES>                                               2709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      2709
<CGS>                                                  958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     11874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      5522
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (15870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (15870)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (15870)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (2.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (2.37)
        

</TABLE>
#### BROWN v. BONEY

No. 287 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 636.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 September 1979.
#### HARRELL v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM

No. 53 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 386.

Petition for'writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 24 September 1974.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RYAN BAGWELL , Plaintiff ,

v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Defendant

. Case No. 15

- cv
- 00531 ( CRC )

ORDER Having considered the Defendant’ s [19] February 29, 2016 status report and supplemental Vaugh n Index, the Court finds that the Department of Justice has adequately justified its withholding in full of the 104 previously withheld pages of documents as to which the Court reserved judgment in its December 18, 2015 Memorandum Opinion. See Bagwell v. U .S. Dep’t of
Justice , No. 15

- CV

- 00531 (CRC), 2015 WL 9272836, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2015)

. The combination of the supplemental Vaughn Index and the original affidavits also lead the Court to find that DOJ has released all reasonably segregable material i n those documents . Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’ s [12] Motion for Summary J udgment be GRANTED IN
PART with respect to those documents. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s [12] Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED without prejudice i n all other respects. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [13] Cross

- Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be DENIED

. It is further
ORDERED that [19] Defendant’s Motion to Stay be DENIED . It is furtherORDERED that a ny overall objection by Defendant to the burdensomeness of Plaintiff’ s FOIA request be filed, in the form of a renewed motion for summary judgement (or partial summary judgment), by March 30, 2016. In this regard, the government is reminded of the guidanc e offered by the Court at the February 11, 2016 telephonic status conference regarding the adequacy of treating certain groups of self

- evident grand jury materials on a categorical basis so as to avoid the need for page

- by

- page review. It is further
ORDERED that, a bsent any wholesale burdensomeness objection, Defendant begin processing the request (or any remaining part of the request not challenged as unduly burdensome) upon the payment of applicable processing and duplication fees. Defendant shall produce all non

exempt material on a monthly, rolling basis. Defendant shall complete the production a nd a Vaughn Index of any withheld material within six months of its commencement absent leave of the
Court. The Court will set a schedule for further dis positive motions by either party at the conclusion of the production, as necessary. It is further
ORDERED that t he parties jointly file a further status report every 60 days , beginning
March 31 , 2016.
SO ORDERED

.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District J udge
Date: March 3, 2016

2
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|(i) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-91737, 333-34552, 333-45486, 333-49842, 333-52012, 333-65192, 333-82864, 333-113544 and 333-120976 and 333-123230) pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option Plan, 1999 Director Option Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, 2000 Supplemental Stock Option Plan and Written Compensation Agreements of Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of Spring Bank
Networks, Inc., 1999 Equity Incentive Plan and 2000 Equity Incentive Plan of Entera, Inc., and the Cerberian Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-55744) of Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



of our reports dated July 11, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended April 30, 2005.



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG
LLP



San Jose, California

July 11, 2005
#### HOUSING AUTHORITY v. TRUESDALE

No. 120 PC.

Case below: 42 N.C. App. 256.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 September 1979. Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 10 September 1979.
EXHIBIT 11



                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 ----------------------------------------------

                 BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE                           SHARES
                 ------------------------                           ------

                 Basic shares outstanding at September 30, 2000    1,955,379

                           NET LOSS             $ (122,166)    $ (.06) PER SHARE
                 ------------------------       -----------    -----------------
                 Basic shares outstanding        1,955,379


                 DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE                         SHARES
                 --------------------------                         ------

                 Basic shares outstanding at September 30, 2000    1,955,379
                 Stock Options-common stock equivalents               76,927
                                                                   ---------
                 Diluted shares outstanding at September 30, 2000  2,032,306

                           NET LOSS             $ (122,166)    $ (.06) PER SHARE
                 --------------------------     ----------     -----------------
                 Diluted shares outstanding      2,032,306
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# TIME AND DATE:

11:30 a.m., Monday, October 1, 2007.

# PLACE:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1.  Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.

2.  Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                        You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at                         *http://www.federalreserve.gov*                         for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.                    

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 21, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 07-4751 Filed 9-21-07; 8:51 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2031 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2031

 To amend the FAST Act to allow States to include information on small 
 business concerns owned and controlled by veterans in reporting under 
  the disadvantaged business enterprises program of the Department of 
                Transportation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2019

 Mr. Barrasso introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the FAST Act to allow States to include information on small 
 business concerns owned and controlled by veterans in reporting under 
  the disadvantaged business enterprises program of the Department of 
                Transportation, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Veterans Enhancing Transportation 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.

    Section 1101(b)(6) of the FAST Act (23 U.S.C. 101 note; Public Law 
114-94) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
        (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
            (3) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so 
        redesignated), by striking ``The Secretary shall establish'' 
        and inserting the following: ``The Secretary shall--
                    ``(A) establish''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) allow State governments to include in 
                reporting described in subparagraph (A) information 
                concerning small business concerns that are owned and 
                controlled by veterans (as defined in section 101 of 
                title 38, United States Code) that are not socially and 
                economically disadvantaged individuals.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CLARK v. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES

No. 144 PC

Case below: 49 NC App 269

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 January 1981.
#### World’s Busiest Corner Corporation, Petitioner, v Cine 42nd Street Theater Corp. et al., Respondents.

Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County,

October 20,1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Kenneth Schwartz*for petitioner. *Finkelstein Borah Schwartz Altschuler & Goldstein (Melissa Ephron*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bernard Fuchs, J.

After a traverse hearing in this nonpayment proceeding, the *282court finds that petitioner delivered a single copy of the three-day notice and thereafter a single copy (or the original) of the petition and notice of petition to the manager (on each occasion) of the theatre which is the property in question. The court also finds that, within one day after each such delivery, petitioner mailed a copy of the same paper to each respondent by certified mail and by regular first class mail.

Respondents contend that the court has no jurisdiction because there are two of them and only a single specimen of the three-day notice and the petition and notice of petition were delivered to the theatre manager. Delivery was made to him as a "person of suitable age and discretion * * * employed at the property sought to be recovered” (RPAPL 735).

The petition designates respondent 156 Building Corp. as the tenant and respondent Cine 42nd Street Theater Corp. as the undertenant. Petitioner asserts, nevertheless, that in fact the latter respondent is an assignee of the former and that the two respondents have a common ownership and management. No evidence of those facts has been presented, however, and the court must decline to find them.

*Raschel v Rish*(120 AD2d 945 [4th Dept 1986]) held that "personal jurisdiction over separate defendants may not be obtained by service of a single summons on * * * a person of suitable age and discretion * * * under CPLR 308 (2).” The pertinent language of that statute and RPAPL 735 is the same.

If the unity of interest of respondents which petitioner argues for were established by evidence it would, perhaps, be immaterial which respondent employed the theatre manager. For that service would be " ' "reasonably calculated * * * to apprise [the] interested part[y] of the * * * action” ’ ” as *Raschel v Rish (supra,*p 945) requires. *(See, Port Chester Elec. Co. v Ronbed Corp.,*28 AD2d 1008 [2d Dept 1967] [delivery of one copy of summons to corporate offices sufficient to serve both officer and corporation]; *see also, Lakeside Concrete Corp. v Pine Hollow Bldg. Corp.,*104 AD2d 551 [2d Dept 1984].) Absent such unity of interest, the doctrine of *Raschel v Rish*is inescapable.

Petitioner argues that delivery to the theatre manager had to be sufficient as to at least one respondent because one of them was in possession of the property and it is reasonable to *283expect the manager to be answerable to that party. Unfortunately, the evidence does not disclose which respondent was in possession. *(Cf. Ilfin Co. v Benec Indus.,*114 Misc 2d 411 [Civ Ct, NY County 1982]; *McDonald v Ames Supply Co.,*22 NY2d 111 [1968].)

Traverse sustained. Petition dismissed.
#### IN RE HOLLAND

No. 93 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 398.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 January 1973.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of William Lyon Homes (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Grubbs, 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; and



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



/s/    MICHAEL D. GRUBBS

---

Michael D. Grubbs

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial

Officer and Treasurer

March 10, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to William Lyon Homes and will be retained by William Lyon Homes and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DMCT LLP

ITEM 19 EXHIBIT F-9

Chartered Accountants

20 Eglinton Avenue West

Suite 2100, P.O. Box 2014

Toronto, ON M4R 1K8

Tel:  416-480-0160

Fax:  416-480-2646

Website:  www.dmct.com



AUDITORS REPORT



To the Shareholders of

Dealcheck.com Inc.



We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Dealcheck.com Inc. as at March 31, 2003 and 2002 and the consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and shareholders deficit for the years then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the companys management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.



We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards and United States generally accepted audited standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.



In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the company as at March 31, 2003 and 2002 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.



Canadian generally accepted accounting principles vary in certain significant respects from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.  Application of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States would have affected results of operations for the year ended march 31, 2003 and the shareholders equity as at that date to the extent summarized in Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements.





/s/:  DMCT, LLP

June 16, 2003

Toronto, Ontario



Comments by Auditor on Canada-United States Reporting Difference



United States reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when the financial statements are affected by conditions and events that cast substantial doubt on the companys ability to continue as a going concern, such as those described in Note 1 to the financial statements.



Although we conducted our audits in accordance with both Canadian generally accepted auditing standards and United States generally accepted auditing standards, our report to the shareholders dated June 16, 2003 is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards which do not permit a reference to such conditions and events in the auditors report when these are adequately disclosed in the financial statements.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) for the
period ending October 31, 2007, I, William A. Shumaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended October 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended October 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 10, 2007



/s/ William A. ShumakerWilliam A. ShumakerPresident and Chief Executive Officer