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


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND THE STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,646
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,646
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,025
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,379)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,646
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (153,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,354)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)



</TABLE>
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 11a0753n.06

Case No. 10-3176

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DAVID SIMON, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: BATCHELDER Chief Judge; SUHRHEINRICH and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. This case arises from a class action complaint

filed by Plaintiffs David Simon, Gary Berk, Jean Heflich, and Evelyn Smith against Defendant

Continental Airlines, Inc. (“Continental”). Plaintiffs allege that Continental violated the terms of

its OnePass frequent flier program; they seek damages, injunctive relief, and certification of a class.

The OnePass program works like any other frequent flier program. Members sign up for the

program, collect miles by flying on Continental, and can redeem those miles for reward tickets and

other merchandise. Plaintiffs allege that Continental charged more than the advertised number of

miles to redeem certain reward tickets, charged an additional fee for tickets redeemed within 20 days

of the flight date, and charged a cancellation feewhen members cancelled a reward ticket and wanted

to redeposit the miles for later use.
No. 10-3176, Simon, et al. v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

Both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion,

granted Continental’s, and denied as moot Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. Plaintiffs appeal.

After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the briefs, and the record in this case,

we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Continental. As the

district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the facts contained

in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned opinion, we AFFIRM the judgment

of the district court.

2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 207 (Friday, October 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 60868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5309]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Training 
and Career Development Subcommittee, November 14, 2007, 9 a.m. to 
November 16, 2007, 5 p.m., Double Tree Hotel & Executive Meeting 
Center, 8120 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in 
the Federal Register on September 17, 2007, Volume 72, <greek-i> 179.
    The date of the meeting was changed to November 13-16, 2007. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 22, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5309 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
|                   |                                                                                                                                                                                  
|------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Exhibit 3.1       
|[exhibit31002.gif]
|                   | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers Place
250 Howe Street, Suite 700
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6C 3S7
Telephone +1 604 806 7000
Facsimile +1 604 806 7806









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the inclusion of our audit report dated February 21, 2007 relating to the financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company), which appears as an exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F.



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form F-10, F-4 and S-4 (No. 333-141155) of our report dated February 21, 2007 relating to the financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which appears in this Annual Report on Form 40-F.





(signed) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Vancouver, Canada

March 30, 2007







PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
<PAGE>

                SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors of
  Infonet Services Corporation
El Segundo, California

     We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Infonet Services
Corporation and its subsidiaries as of March 31, 2000 and 2001, and for each of
the three years in the period ended March 31, 2001, and have issued our report
thereon dated June 11, 2001 (included elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K). Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in
Item 14. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Los Angeles, California
June 11, 2001



                                                                     SCHEDULE II

                 INFONET SERVICES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

           VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                           BALANCE AT CHARGED TO CHARGED             BALANCE AT
                           BEGINNING  COSTS AND  TO OTHER              END OF
       DESCRIPTION         OF PERIOD   EXPENSES  ACCOUNTS DEDUCTIONS   PERIOD
       -----------         ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- ----------
<S>                        <C>        <C>        <C>      <C>        <C>
Allowances for doubtful
  accounts and customer
  credits
  1999....................   $3,851     $1,021    $ (891)     $105     $ 3,876
  2000....................    3,876      1,381     3,128        21       8,364
  2001....................    8,364      2,282     3,296        87      13,855
</TABLE>
* 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. 01-60391

Conference Calendar

 

DAVID GRAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILLIE MAE WILLIAMS, Deputy Warden, MCCF; SHANNON GRIMES,

Disciplinary Chairperson, MCCF; “UNKNOWN” CRAINE, Unit Case

Manager, A Building, MCCF Disciplinary Board Member; “UNKNOWN”

CROCKERN, Officer, Disciplinary Board Member, MCCF; “UNKNOWN”

LYNCH, Sergeant, Disciplinary Investigator, MCCF; LESHA AGNUE,

Internal Affairs, MCCF; JANE DOE, The 4th Disciplinary Committee

Member,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:00-CV-82-D

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

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Gray, Mississippi prisoner # 01440, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Gray

argues that the defendants did not follow proper prison policies

and procedures in collecting and handling his urine sample; the

Rule Violation Report (RVR) was not issued until 54 days after

the urine sample was taken; the RVR incorrectly states that the

violation was unauthorized possession of marijuana and not

unauthorized use of marijuana; and the investigator and Warden
No. 01-60391 

-2-

Williams failed to investigate the RVR to ensure that the proper

prison policies were followed. Gray has not shown that the

district court erred in determining that Gray’s loss of visiting

privileges and change in custodial classification were not

sufficiently severe punishments to entitle him to due process

protections in view of Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484

(1995).

Gray also argues that Warden Williams violated his right of

access to the courts by failing to return documents which were

attached to his administrative appeal. Because Warden Williams’

failure to return the documents did not prevent Gray from filing

this action or appeal, he had not shown that Warden Williams

violated his right of access to the court. See Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996).

Gray argues the district court erred in dismissing his

action without allowing him the opportunity to conduct discovery. 

Because Gray does not state what information he expected to

uncover with discovery, his argument is conclusional and he has

not shown that the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing his action without allowing him a sufficient

opportunity to conduct discovery. King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344,

346 (5th Cir. 1994).

For the first time on appeal, Gray argues that a new prison

policy which limits his access to three legal file folders at a

time violates his right of access to the courts. This issue may

not be raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v.

Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOHN D. SOUTER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv65/MCR/EMT

WARDEN ELLIS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause is before the court on Plaintiff’s response to the previous order of the court

requiring him to submit eighteen (18) service copies of his Second Amended Complaint filed under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 37). 

Plaintiff’s response contains no complete, identical copy of the Second Amended Complaint. 

Each of the eighteen copies submitted by Plaintiff is missing pages 3–6 of the amended complaint. 

The clerk shall therefore be directed to return Plaintiff’s response to him. To assist Plaintiff in

complying with the court’s order, the clerk shall also be directed to return to Plaintiff one of the two

service copies of the Second Amended Complaint presently in the court’s file, which represents an

accurate copy of the original Second Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff must now submit a total of nineteen (19) service copies of his amended complaint: 

he may resubmit the service copy (presently provided to him for informational purposes) as well as

eighteen photocopies of the service copy. In addition, Plaintiff is advised to make and keep one

copy of the Second Amended Complaint for his own records.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk is directed to return to Plaintiff one of the complete service copies of his

Second Amended Complaint and the eighteen incomplete copies submitted in response to the court’s

previous order.
Page 2 of 2

2. Within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order,

Plaintiff shall submit nineteen (19) identical and complete copies of his Second Amended Complaint

(Doc. 34), as explained above. This case number should be written on the copies.

3. Failure to respond to this order as instructed may result in dismissal of this action for

failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No.: 3:10cv65/MCR/EMT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          55,023
<SECURITIES>                                       118
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,779
<INVENTORY>                                    100,259
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               369,078
<PP&E>                                         377,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 708,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          251,974
<BONDS>                                         77,442
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,680
<OTHER-SE>                                     299,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   708,843
<SALES>                                        602,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               602,336
<CGS>                                          229,493
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  229,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               272,707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,563
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 91,866
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,885
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,981
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    67,981
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.10
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50970 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS RIVERA-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-725-ALL-PRM

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Rivera-Velasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rivera-Velasquez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Rivera-Velasquez maintains thatNo. 03-50970 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Rivera-Velasquez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ERIC DAVID HARRIS a/k/a

DAVID JOSEPH NORTHRUP,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv76/RS-MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL, et al,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31). 

Plaintiff has not filed objections. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(A)

because of Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

3. All pending motions are denied as moot. 

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on August 3, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Quadra Projects Inc. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Claude Diedrick, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Claude DiedrickClaude DiedrickPresident, Chief Executive Officer, ChiefFinancial Officer, Treasurer and DirectorDate: April 16, 2010

---
# CE2013353EN.01024701.xml

| 3.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 353/247 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 353/247

---

Thursday 13 September 2012Renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil ***

P7_TA(2012)0337

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 September 2012 on the draft Council Decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil (10475/2012 – C7-0181/2012 – 2012/0059(NLE))

2013/C 353 E/44

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council Decision (10475/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council Decision (10475/2012),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2005/781/EC of 6 June 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2005/781/EC of 6 June 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil (1),

1

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), point (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0181/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), point (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0181/2012),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0268/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0268/2012),

| 1. | Consents to the renewal of the Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to the renewal of the Agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Federative Republic of Brazil. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Federative Republic of Brazil.

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 11.11.2005, p. 37.

1

---