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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from HCW Pension
Real Estate Fund Limited Partnership 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000745538
<NAME> HCW PENSION REAL ESTATE FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      408
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (51)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          14,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,184
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,952
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,482)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (154.92)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5208 

To make technical corrections to the National Parks and Recreation Act 

of 1978, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2014 

Mr. FORBES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To make technical corrections to the National Parks and 

Recreation Act of 1978, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD LAND 

4 ACQUISITION. 

5 Section 313(a) of the National Parks and Recreation 

6 Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘May 1978.’’ and inserting ‘‘May 1978, and in addition 

8 such lands located as the Secretary deems appropriate, not 

9 to exceed four acres.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00058

- CR

Cynthia Torres LEAL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 08

- 00087

- CRF

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED June 15, 2016.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 9 a.m.-11 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# STATUS: 

Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Pending Decisional Matters: (a) Baby Walkers Final Rule; and (b) Revocation of the Ban of Certain Baby Walkers.

                        A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at                         *http://www.cpsc.gov/​webcast.*

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: May 14, 2010.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-12278 Filed 5-18-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
#### Peach Partners, a Joint Venture, Respondent, v A.T. Management Corp. et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 20, 1995;

decided February 13, 1996

Motion by defendant Konstantinides for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that that party is not a party aggrieved (CPLR 5511). Motion, insofar as defendant A.T. Management Corp. seeks leave to appeal from an order of the Appellate Division denying its motion for reargument or, alternatively, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that that order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
#### In the Matter of Linda Hollis, Appellant, v Marriott Hotel, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted October 10,1995;

decided December 7, 1995

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see,*CPLR 5513 [b]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed, etc., as academic.
#### A. P. Sawyer v. G. K. Hazlitt et al.

*Contracts—Balance Due—Recovery of—Set-off—Propositions of*Law— *Practice.*

1. The finding of the court upon a question of fact, the trial being had without a jury, is conclusive unless some error oE law was committed.

2. In an action to recover a balance due for composition work done upon a book, the defendant seeking to recoup damages for errors in setting up and proof reading, this court declines to interfere with a judgment for the plaintiff.

[Opinion filed December 11, 1890.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. S. *P.*McConnell, *Judge,*presiding.

Messrs. E. A. Aborn and H. T. Helm, for appellant.

Messrs. H. C. Bennett and W. A. Phelps, for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

This action was brought to recover a balance due for certain composition work done on a book for appellant. The appellant sought to recoup damages for errors in setting up and proof reading, which were discovered after the electrotyping had been done, and numerous copies of the book printed. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and a portion of the damages which appellant claimed was allowed by the court, and deducted from the amount due under the contract.

The evidence tended to show that appellant contracted with appellees that they should do the type setting for a certain price, and that for a certain increase of price per em they agreed to do the proof reading. Appellees introduced evidence to show that appellant read the proofs himself; that all the galley proof was submitted to him, and he returned *475them with his O K on them. Appellant testified that he only read the proof of certain formulas contained in the book.

There being a conflict of evidence upon the question of who, in fact, read the proofs, the finding of the court is conclusive unless some error of law was committed.

Several propositions of law were submitted to the court to be held, and his refusal to hold some of them is assigned for error.

In the first proposition refused the rule of damages was too broadly stated. Appellant was entitled to recoup or set off only such damage as was the necessary and probable result of the failure to read the proof correctly. The proposition states that he could set off *“*any damage sustained.” It was not error to refuse such proposition.

The fourth proposition was rightly refused, because it contained no hypothesis negativing appellees’ claim, which there was evidence to support, that appellant himself read and O K’d the proofs.

The third proposition is subject to the same objection. Emery v. Ginnan, 21 Ill. App. 65.

Other propositions refused were mere finding of fact instead of propositions of law, therefore properly refused.

The judgment must be affirmed, no error appearing which requires its reversal.

*Judgment*affirmed.
#### James Fullington and another, as Administrators, etc., Respondents, v. Alonzo C. Maklem, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Opinion by

Bradley, J.
1 406639-v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SULLIVAN HILL REZ & ENGEL Electronically Filed 10/24/2019

A Professional Law Corporation

James P. Hill, SBN 90478

Christopher V. Hawkins, SBN 222961

Jonathan S. Dabbieri, SBN 91963

600 B Street, Suite 1700

San Diego, California 92101

Tel: (619) 233-4100

Email: hill@sullivanhill.com

hawkins@sullivanhill.com

dabbieri@sullivanhill.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY

Debtors

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case–Jointly Administered)

REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM 

COURTESY NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC 

FILING AND ALL NOTIFICATIONS 

Affects:

PG&E Corporation

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case,

 No. 19-30088 (DM).

TO THE COURT, ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys hereby request to be removed from 

this Court’s Courtesy Notification of Electronic Filing distribution and further wish to cease receiving 

all notifications and/or documents filed in the above-captioned case:

SULLIVAN HILL REZ & ENGEL

A Professional Law Corporation

James P. Hill

Christopher V. Hawkins

Jonathan S. Dabbieri

600 B Street, Suite 1700

San Diego, California 92101

Tel: (619) 233-4100

Email: hill@sullivanhill.com; hawkins@sullivanhill.com; 

dabbieri@sullivanhill.com

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4471 Filed: 10/24/19 Entered: 10/24/19 16:23:29 Page 1 of

3
2 406639-v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This request is intended, without limitation, to constitute a request for removal from all 

service lists, including but not limited to (1) CM/ECF notification in the case; (2) court-designated 

services as set forth in the Bankruptcy Rules; and (3) the notices and papers referred to in the 

Bankruptcy Rules and title 11 of the United States Code.

Dated: October 24, 2019 SULLIVAN HILL REZ & ENGEL

A Professional Law Corporation

By: /s/ Christopher V. Hawkins

James P. Hill

Christopher V. Hawkins

Jonathan S. Dabbieri

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4471 Filed: 10/24/19 Entered: 10/24/19 16:23:29 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4471 Filed: 10/24/19 Entered: 10/24/19 16:23:29 Page 3 of

3
A96A1190.

#### HOSSEINI v. DONINO.

(475 SE2d 665)

Blackburn, Judge.

Hassan Hosseini appeals the jury verdict in favor of defendant Donino following a jury trial of this tort action arising out of an automobile collision.

1. Hosseini asserts that the trial court erred in (1) admitting evidence of an allegedly prejudicial and misleading photograph, (2) failing to grant his motion for directed verdict, and (3) denying his motion for j.n.o.v. and in the alternative motion for new trial.

“The burden is on the party alleging error to show it affirmatively by the record. When the burden is not met, the judgment complained of is assumed to be correct and must be affirmed. Where the transcript is necessary for review and appellant omits it from the record on appeal, the appellate court must assume the judgment below was correct and affirm.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) *Mike’s Garage Door Co. v. Dews,*220 Ga. App. 648, 649 (469 SE2d 855) (1996). No statutorily authorized substitute for the trial transcript was submitted. See also *Alexander v. Jones,*216 Ga. App. 360 (454 SE2d 539) (1995).

Although each of appellant’s enumerations of error requires a review of the transcript and evidence in order to determine the merit of this appeal, Hosseini failed to instruct the clerk of the trial court to include the trial transcript in the appellate record.1 Therefore, the rulings of the trial judge and the jury verdict must be affirmed.

2. Donino requests that this Court impose a penalty against Hosseini for frivolously pursuing this appeal pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b). A penalty for a frivolous appeal may be assessed in cases where the appellant could have no reasonable basis for anticipating reversal of the trial court’s judgment. *Hallisy v. Snyder,*219 Ga. App. 128, 129 (464 SE2d 219) (1995).

Hosseini has intentionally failed to include the trial transcript or statutorily authorized substitute in the record on appeal, and he could therefore have no reasonable basis for anticipating that this Court would reverse the judgment of the trial court. We therefore impose a penalty of $500 against Hosseini pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b) and direct the trial court to enter judgment against Hosseini in this amount upon return of the remittitur.

*Judgment affirmed with direction.*

*Beasley, C. J., and Birdsong, P. J., concur.*

*698Decided August 19, 1996

Reconsideration denied September 10, 1996.

*David C. Farshy,*for appellant.

*Carter & Ansley, Keith L. Lindsay, Thomas E. Magill,*for appel-

1

 This omission was clearly intentional, as Hosseini directed that the transcript of the hearing on the motion for j.n.o.v. and in the alternative motion for new trial be included, omitting any reference to the trial transcript.
#### Antony Reisert and another, Appellants, v. William R. Peters, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Brady, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1461

RYAN ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JASON W. POLLARD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00033-DJN)

Submitted: September 9, 2021 Decided: November 10, 2021

Before FLOYD, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Anderson appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denying reconsideration.∗

 We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Anderson v. Pollard, No. 3:21-cv-00033-DJN (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2021; Mar. 

24, 2021); see also Cromer v. Kraft Foods N.A., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004) 

(noting that federal courts have “authority to limit access to the courts by vexatious and 

repetitive litigants”); Anderson v. Pollard, __ F. App’x __, 2021 WL 3503418, at *2-3 

(10th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021) (affirming dismissal of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

based on claim preclusion); Anderson v. Pollard, 775 F. App’x 967 (10th Cir. 2019) 

(affirming dismissal of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Anderson v. Pollard, 774 F. 

App’x 820 (4th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of action as frivolous, vexatious, and for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Anderson v. Pollard, No. 3:20-

cv-00489-DJN (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2020) (dismissing action as frivolous and for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗ We have construed Anderson’s informal brief on appeal as a timely notice of 

appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. See Smith v. 

Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992); Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016).
<PAGE>   1

MET-COIL SYSTEMS CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES
(In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Three Months Ended             
                                                                                        August 31,            
                                                                                 1997                1996   
==========================================================================================================
<S>                                                                        <C>                     <C>      
Common shares outstanding, beginning of period                                  3,141               3,121   
                                                                                                            
Weighted average of common shares issued                                        - - -                  (2)  
                                                                                                            
Weighted average common equivalent shares attributable to stock                                             
         options granted, computed using the treasury stock method                102                   1   
                                                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average common shares and common share equivalents                     3,243               3,120   
==========================================================================================================
Net income applicable to common stock                                       $      17           $     465   
==========================================================================================================
Net income per common share                                                 $    0.01           $    0.15   
==========================================================================================================
</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 I, Michael J. Falbo, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of State Financial Services Corporation;
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors  (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: August 9, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Michael J. Falbo
 
 Michael J. Falbo
 President and Chief Executive Officer