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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,104,147
<SECURITIES>                                 2,484,139
<RECEIVABLES>                                  311,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                    640,131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,621,242
<PP&E>                                         662,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                 490,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,376,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,066,118
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,641
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,304,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,376,170
<SALES>                                      1,006,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,006,381
<CGS>                                        1,925,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,165,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,393,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,393,097)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.96)


</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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21106

Summary Calendar

 

ROGER LEE DICKERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

OFFICER JORDAN, Correctional Officer III;

C. PRICE, Major; WARDEN F. FIGUEROA;

BILL LEWIS; GARY L. JOHNSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-4324

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

March 26, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roger Lee Dickerson, Texas prisoner # 371312, appeals the

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). He asserts that Officer

Jordan’s seizure of legal documents from his cell resulted in a

denial of access to the courts. As Dickerson has failed to

allege an actual injury, he cannot prevail on his access-to-thecourts claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996).
No. 01-21106

-2-

Dickerson contends that Jordan violated prison policy

regarding searches of prisoner legal materials. An allegation

that prison officials failed to follow prison policy, without

more, does not state a constitutional cause of action. Hernandez

v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).

Dickerson maintains that Jordan’s actions were motivated by

earlier complaints about Jordan’s conduct. Such a claim of

retaliation is without merit, as Dickerson has failed to “allege

a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be

inferred.” Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Dickerson’s subjective belief that Jordan was motivated by

retaliation is insufficient to support the claim. Johnson v.

Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997).

Dickerson has failed to challenge the district court’s

dismissal of his claims against the other supervisory defendants. 

Issues that are not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Dickerson has failed to show that the district court erred

in dismissing his civil rights lawsuit. See Black v. Warren, 134

F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.
NON‐REGENT MEMBERSHIP ON BOARD COMMITTEES

BACKGROUND

At its May 5, 2008, meeting, the Board of Regents adopted the following  

recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee:

The Committee recommends that Board capacity be broadened by aggressively,

but prudently, adding non‐Regents to its committees.  In doing so, the

Committee recognizes that to be effective, non‐Regent members must be

considered full and equal members of committees for all purposes.  Moreover,

the Committee concludes that non‐Regent members are most productive if they

possess significant ties to the Smithsonian beyond a committee assignment.  

Accordingly, primary consideration should be given to leaders of the Smithsonian

advisory boards and Regents Emeriti, who can bring diversity and a wide‐range

of experience and skills to the operations of the Board.

PROCESS

1. In implementing this recommendation, the Regents, with the assistance of the

Secretary, rely on a database maintained by the Office of External Affairs that

contains background and expertise data on the over 600 members of various

Smithsonian advisory boards.  [Membership requirements to become an advisory

board member vary by board.  See Smithsonian Directive 123.]

2. On an at least a biannual basis, the Governance and Nominating Committee will

request a large slate of potential committee member candidates from the Secretary.  

The Secretary, with the assistance of the Office of External Affairs, will consult, as

appropriate, with the unit directors and advisory board chairs to further refine the

potential pool.   

3. The candidate pool for each committee is then reviewed by the relevant committee

chair, who, in consultation with the Secretary and Chair of the Board of Regents, will

request that the Governance and Nominating Committee consider the strongest

candidates for membership.  Non‐Regent candidates will be considered based on

their expertise in areas subject to a committee’s oversight responsibilities.  [See

individual committee charters http://si.edu/about/regents/committees.htm.]    

The Governance and Nominating Committee will review the candidates and make

recommendations to the full Board for appointment, usually at the Board’s January

meeting.
4. Pursuant to the Board’s direction, non‐Regent members of committees “are

considered full and equal members of committees for all purposes,” including being

subject to the Smithsonian’s ethical guidelines for board members and Regents’

performance assessments.   

5. Individuals who do not currently serve on a Smithsonian advisory board but are

interested in serving on Regents’ committees may request consideration by

contacting the Office of the Regents.  Contact information is at

http://si.edu/about/regents/contact.htm.
*

 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. 04-50177

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

JAIRO DARLENY MINERO-MENDEZ

 Defendant - Appellant

____________________________________________________

 Case No. 04-50906

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

JOSE ISRAEL LOBOS

 Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, Del Rio

DR-03-CR-562-1-AML

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 12, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
the sentences is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed motion

to remand the cases to district court for resentencing is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed

alternative motion to extend time to file the Appellee’s brief

fourteen (14) days from the Court’s denial of the Appellee’s

motion to vacate and remand is DENIED as unnecessary.
APPENDIX A: APPROVED RESOLUTION OF THE

AUGUST 23, 2011, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents pursuant to Board

Bylaw 3.01, authorizes the Secretary to lease approximately 70,000 square feet of collections

space at 9601 Apollo Drive, Largo, Maryland 20774.  [2011.08.01]
# **Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned, as general counsel, vice president corporate developmentof MacroChem Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to theundersigned’s knowledge:

 

1)             Company’sreport on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Form 10-Q”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)             the informationcontained in the Company’s Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |  /s/  David P. Luci                                                                            |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |  David P. Luci    President & Chief Business Officer    (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

Dated:    May 14,2008

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to MacroChem Corporation and will be retained by MacroChemCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7298** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ROBERT JONES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri ct of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00001

- JCC

- 4; 1:11

- cv - 00402

- JCC )

Submitted : January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Lisa Owings, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Steven Donald Mellin, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unles s a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). W hen the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a deb atable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Steven Cole, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00179

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 124th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 41312

- A ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for a

new trial.
We further order that the appell ee , The State of Texas , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED DECEMBER 1 8 , 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2325

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure equity in the provision

of transportation by limousine services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 29, 2000

Mr. TORRICELLI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure equity

in the provision of transportation by limousine services.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Contracted Automobile

5 Regulatory Relief Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REGULATION OF INTERSTATE AND CERTAIN INTRA7 STATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.

8 Section 14501(a) of title 49, United States Code, is

9 amended—

10 (1) in paragraph (1)—
2

•S 2325 IS

1 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’

2 at the end;

3 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the

4 period at the end and inserting a semicolon;

5 and

6 (C) by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(D) prohibiting, restricting, licensing, per8 mitting, or regulating the operation of a motor

9 vehicle that is providing limousine service on an

10 interstate basis, except in the case of the State

11 or political subdivision in which the limousine

12 operator maintains its principal place of busi13 ness; or

14 ‘‘(E) requiring that a person, that has se15 cured any mandatory State license, permit, cer16 tificate, or authority to operate a limousine

17 service on an intrastate basis between or among

18 political subdivisions within the State, obtain, in

19 order to conduct limousine service between or

20 among political subdivisions of the State, a li21 cense, permit, certificate, or other form of au22 thority from any political subdivision of the

23 State other than the political subdivision in

24 which the limousine operator maintains its prin25 cipal place of business.’’; and
3

•S 2325 IS

1 (2) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

3 ‘‘(A) LIMOUSINE SERVICE.—The term

4 ‘limousine service’ means a prearranged ground

5 transportation service in a motor vehicle (other

6 than a motor vehicle providing taxicab service),

7 the seating capacity of which does not exceed

8 15 passengers (including the driver), that—

9 ‘‘(i) is provided on a dedicated, non10 scheduled, charter basis;

11 ‘‘(ii) is not conducted on a regular

12 route; and

13 ‘‘(iii) does not entail shuttle service.

14 ‘‘(B) SHUTTLE SERVICE.—The term ‘shut15 tle service’ means the simultaneous provision of

16 a nondedicated transportation service to more

17 than 1 paying customer in a case in which the

18 service provider, rather than the customer, re19 serves the power to determine the pickup or

20 destination point.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Mendocino Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mendocino County Resource Advisory Committee will meet 
June 18, 2010 (RAC) in Willits, California. Agenda items to be covered 
include: (1) Approval of minutes, (2) Handout Discussion, (3) Public 
Comment, (4) Financial Report, (5) Sub-committees, (6) Matters before 
the group, (7) Discussion--approval of projects, and (8) Next agenda 
and meeting date.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 18, 2010, from 9 a.m. until 12 
noon.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino County Museum, 
located at 400 E. Commercial St., Willits, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberta Hurt, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Covelo Ranger District, 78150 Covelo 
Road, Covelo, CA 95428. (707) 983-6658; E-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fe8f6f1fbf2f6f3f3dfe8f6f3f3f6ebecf0f1f3f6f1fab1fcf0f2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e1907000a030702022e19070202071a1d01000207000b400d0103">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Persons 
who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file 
written statements with the Committee staff by June 14, 2010. Public 
comment will have the opportunity to address the committee at the 
meeting.

    Dated: May 10, 2010.
Lee Johnson,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2010-11804 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL CAPRIGLIONE,

Respondent Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE, ex rel.

KATHLEEN JENNINGS,

ATTORN E Y GENERAL

,

Petitioner Below,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 138, 2021

Court Below: Superior Court

of the State of Delaware

CA No. N21C

- 04

- 091

Submitted: July 14, 2021

Decided: July 1 6 , 2021

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, TRAYNOR

, and

MONTGOMERY

- REEVES , Justices, constituting the Court en banc

.

O R D E R

This 1 6 th day of July 2021, the Court

, having considered the record, the briefs,

and the oral argument of counsel on an expedited basis

, has concluded that the

judgment of the Superior Court should be reversed. A more formal opinion, fully

explaining our views, will issue in due course. The mandate shall issue immediately.

The Appellant may take his oath of office.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Ju stice
# States in the Senate | Missouri Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

 1. Vacancy from Mar. 4 to Mar. 17, 1905, because of failure of legislature to elect.

 2. Resigned Jan. 17, 1945, having been elected vice president of the United States.

 3. Elected to term commencing Jan. 3, 1977, and subsequently appointed by governor, to fill vacancy in term ending Jan. 2, 1977.

 4. By governor, to fill vacancy caused by death of husband Mel, who was posthumously elected to term ending Jan. 2, 2007. Defeated in special election.

 5. Vacancy from Mar. 4, 1855, to Jan. 12, 1857.

 6. Vacancy from Mar. 3 to Mar. 17, 1861.

 7. Elected for the term commencing Mar. 4, 1933, and was subsequently appointed to the Senate to fill the vacancy for the term ending Mar. 3, 1933.

 8. Elected to term commencing Jan. 3, 1969, and subsequently appointed by governor, to fill vacancy in term ending Jan. 3, 1969.

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-110629 and No. 333-130484) and on Form S-8 (No. 333-39592, No. 333-42616, No. 333-47250, No.333-84825, No. 333-88418, No. 333-88420, No. 333-90795, No. 333-110516 and No. 333-120439) ofEmdeon Corporation of our report dated March 1, 2007 except for Note 24 as to which the date is May 9, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Emdeon Corporation, and our report datedMarch 1, 2007 except for the effects of the material weaknessdescribed in the seventh paragraph of such report as to which the dateis May 9, 2007 with respect to Emdeon Corporation’smanagement’s restated assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Emdeon Corporation, included inthis Annual Report (Form 10-K/A)for the year ended December 31, 2006.                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         MetroPark, New Jersey
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T W A Y N E RO M A N S, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. I NC L I NE VI L L AG E GE NE R AL I M PR OV EM ENT DI ST RI CT , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 17153 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 4 0 3 - RCJ - V PC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC . J one s , C hi e f

Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W a y n e R o m a n s ap p e a ls f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is a c tio n a lle g in g v io la tio n s o f th e A m e r ic an s w ith D is ab ilitie s A c t an dA r iz o n as ta te l a w . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ap p lic a tio n o f la c h e s . G rupo G i

ga nte SA D e C V

v. 

# FI LED SEP 24 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17153 2 D al lo & C o. , 391 F . 3d 1088, 1101 ( 9th C i r . 2004) . W e r e ve r s e a nd r e m and. T he di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on bys uas pont e di s m i s s i ng the a c t i on ba s e d on l a c he s be c aus e , a tthi s poi nti n the pr oc e e di ngs , the r e c or d i s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o de t e rm i ne w he the rR om a ns r e c e i ve d ava l i d r i ght - t o- s ue l e tt e rf r om the N e va da E m p lo y m e n t R ig h ts C o m m is s io n g iv in g h im n o tic e o f h is d e a d lin e to f

ile s u it, w h e th e rR o m a n s d e lay e df ilin g h is s u it, an dw h e th e rd e f e n d an t w a s p r e

ju d ic e d . Se e Br o wn v . Co n t ’ l

Ca n Co . , 765 F . 2d 810, 814- 15 ( 9th C i r . 1985) ( l a c he s not avai l abl e a s am att erof l aw w here m at er i aldi sput es exi stas t o w hether pl ai nt i ff d el ayedseek i n g a ri g h t -t o -su e l ett er o r fi l i n g su i t , an dn o tap p l i cab l e u n l ess d e f e n d a n t w a s p r e

ju d ic e d ) ; c

f . B oone v . Me c h. Spe c i al t i es C o. , 609 F . 2d 956, 958- 6 0 & n .3 (9 th C ir. 1 9 7 9 ) ( ap p lyin g lach es at su m m ary ju d g m en t w h er e p lain ti ff’s se ven-ye ardel ayi n see ki ng ri gh t -t o-sue l ett ercaused defendantac tual prej ud i ce ). A cco rd i n g l y, w e rem an dfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. E a c h p a rtys h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.