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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,104
<INVENTORY>                                     41,127
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,305
<PP&E>                                          59,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,341
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 261,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,201
<BONDS>                                        185,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   261,548
<SALES>                                         78,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,035
<CGS>                                           56,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   338
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,446
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,811
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (978)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,833)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,833)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Alice Chamberlain, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

January 14, 1937.

*881
      *Alan L. Dingle,*for the executor.

*Philip Watson,*for the husband, objectant.

Delehanty, S.

The major question here presented is whether the surviving spouse of deceased may elect against her will. Concededly the spouses were not living together for a considerable time. The only testimony offered in opposition to the husband’s claim of right to elect is that given by a friend of deceased and by the attorney who drew the will of deceased. These witnesses report statements of the deceased to them wherein deceased asserted that the surviving spouse failed to support her. This testimony is wholly without weight. It is equally without weight that deceased included in her will a statement of similar import. All of these declarations are pure hearsay.

The referee took the testimony of the surviving spouse subject to a motion to strike it out. That motion is granted. The spouse is held not to be competent to testify.

The case as now presented is one in which no legal proof whatever has been given on the subject of abandonment or failure to provide. Accordingly the rule of law stated in *Matter of Green*(155 Misc. 641; affd., 246 App. Div. 583) operates to confirm the surviving husband’s right to elect. The presumption is that he had the right to elect. That presumption has not been overcome. Accordingly his election is held to be valid.

Since the ruling on the husband’s right of election establishes that he is a person interested in the estate his objections must be disposed of. The court holds that in the circumstances presented here there was no waste in keeping the estate account in a commercial bank. Accordingly the first objection based on failure to put the funds out at interest during administration is overruled. Objection second raises only a question whether certain-items are properly scheduled. There is no claim that the items had been *882collected. Objection third is overruled. The costs were allowed as payable out of the estate and are an administration expense. The funeral expenses are approved. The expenditure of ten dollars Usted in Schedule C is approved.

Objection fourth raises no issue which requires a ruling since it relates only to the form of the account. There is no proof before the court as to the value of the household articles. The surviving spouse is entitled to the property directed under section 200 of the Surrogate’s Court Act to be set off. If the parties cannot agree upon the articles coming within the description of that section, a hearing on the subject will be held on the 21st day of January, 1937, at eleven o’clock a. m. This will dispose of the fifth objection.

The question of commissions raised by the sixth objection will be disposed of on the settlement of the decree.

If agreement can be reached on the household furniture a stipulation on the subject should be filed by January 20, 1937. Otherwise the hearing wiU proceed as stated herein.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 December 27, 2017

s1218

Order 

Clerk

December 27, 2017

155410

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155410

COA: 335347

Wayne CC: 13-000447-FC

DALE FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2017 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
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 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

M. Ryan Pinkston (SBN 310971) 

rpinkston@seyfarth.com 

560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 397-2823 

Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 

Attorneys for 

Turner Construction Company

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☒ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

☐ Affects both Debtors 

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY’S 

NOTICE OF PERFECTION OF LIEN 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 546(b)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4916 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:52:04 Page 1 of

5
1

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 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(b)(3) and 546(b), Turner Construction Company (“Turner”) hereby 

gives notice of its perfection of, maintenance and continuation of perfection of, and intention to enforce 

to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, see, e.g., California Civil Code § 8400 et seq., Turner’s 

duly recorded mechanic’s lien for labor, equipment, material, and services provided by Turner to Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company, as more fully described in the attached Exhibit A. See Village Nurseries v. 

Gould (In re Baldwin Builders), 232 B.R. 406 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999); Village Nurseries v. Greenbaum, 

101 Cal. App. 4th 26 (2002). This notice is in addition to, and not in lieu of, Turner’s right and intention 

to enforce its lien to the fullest extent permitted by law. Turner reserves all rights. 

DATED: December 1, 2019 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

By: /s/ M. Ryan Pinkston 

M. Ryan Pinkston 

Attorneys for Turner Construction Company

56430669v.1 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4916 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:52:04 Page 2 of

5
EXHIBIT A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4916 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:52:04 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4916 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:52:04 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4916 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:52:04 Page 5 of

5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AARON BROCKINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-90-100, CA-96-5-3)

Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Brockington, Appellant Pro Se. Wade A. Kizer, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Howard Crawford Vick, Jr., OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Although the district court had jurisdiction to consider

Appellant's motion, see Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S.

17, 18 (1976), we agree that the motion was untimely under Rule

60(b)(1) and did not present a claim cognizable under Rule

60(b)(6). Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Brockington, Nos. CR-90-100;

CA-96-5-3 (E.D. Va. June 13, 1997). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

Exhibit C

CUSTOMARY AND COMPARABLE COMPENSATION DISCLOSURES

Category of 

Timekeeper

BLENDED HOURLY RATE

Billed by timekeepers in all 

domestic offices, excluding 

bankruptcy2

Billed in this Application

Partner $1,186.00 $1,266.00

Counsel $950.00 $1,029.00

Senior Associate (7 

years or more since 

first admission)

$893.00 $967.00

Mid-level Associate 

(4-6 years since first 

admission)

$807.00 $906.00

Junior Associate (0-3 

years since first 

admission)

$599.00 $650.00

Paralegal $305.00 $292.00

Other $310.00 $380.00

All timekeepers 

aggregated $807.00 $953.00

 2 In accordance with the Guidelines for Reviewing Applications for Compensation and Reimbursement 

of Expenses Filed under 11 U.S.C. § 330 by Attorneys in Larger Chapter 11 Cases, effective November 

1, 2013, preceding year is a rolling 12 months year ending June 30, 2019; blended rates reflect work 

performed in preceding year in each of the domestic offices in which timekeepers collectively billed at 

least 10% of the hours to the case during the application period, excluding all data from bankruptcy law 

matters.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2988-3 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 17:17:14 Page 1

of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          28,774
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             765
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                11,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    111,876
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          10,300
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            10,427
<LOANS>                                        635,857
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 817,293
<DEPOSITS>                                     630,005
<SHORT-TERM>                                    55,165
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,531
<LONG-TERM>                                     49,176
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,821
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 817,293
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 40,724
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,587
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   664
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                46,975
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              17,092
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,485
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           24,490
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,237
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  36
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 17,288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,223
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      10,223
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14<F2>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.30
<LOANS-NON>                                        812
<LOANS-PAST>                                       179
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   446
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,754
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,335
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,039
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,019
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,552
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,666
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,886
<FN>
<F1>RESTATED FOR ADOPTION OF SFAS NO. 128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE"
<F2>RESTATED FOR ADOPTION OF SFAS NO. 128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE"
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Mary Kane, as Administratrix, etc., of Thomas Kane, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Appellant.*, †

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 21, 1932.

*Tanner, Sillcocks & Friend [Dean Potter*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Irving A. Cook,*for the respondent.

*

Revg. 143 Misc. 631.

†

 Affd., 240 App. Div. 910.

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to appellant, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Respondent states in her brief that she is not relying upon the answer to show that proofs of death were furnished. The papers having been marked for identification only and not having been received in evidence, plaintiff offered no proof that she complied with the condition of the policy and defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. There is no proof of waiver. No opinion.

All concur. Present •— Cropsey, MacCrate and Johnston, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,614
<INVENTORY>                                    115,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               215,349
<PP&E>                                          85,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 270,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,126
<BONDS>                                         80,454
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           857
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   270,834
<SALES>                                        257,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               257,166
<CGS>                                          168,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,581)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,126
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,361
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,765
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02


</TABLE>
---

CONSENT OF CHRISTOPHER MORETON

The undersigned hereby consents to:

(i) the filing of the written disclosure (the Technical
Disclosure) regarding the technical report entitled Technical Report on the
EZ1 and EZ2 Breccia Pipes, Arizona Strip District, U.S.A. dated June 27, 2012,
contained in the Annual Information Form for the period ended December 31, 2014
(the AIF) of Energy Fuels Inc. (the Company) being filed as an exhibit to
the Companys Form 40-F Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2014,
and any amendments thereto (the 40-F), being filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC);

(ii) the incorporation by reference of such Technical
Disclosure in the 40-F and the AIF into the Companys Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File No. 333-194900), filed with the SEC, and any amendments thereto
(the S-8);

(iii) the incorporation by reference of such Technical
Disclosure in the AIF into the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statement (File
No. 333-194916), filed with the SEC, and any amendments thereto (the F-10);
and

(iv) the use of our name in the AIF, the F-10, the 40-F and the
S-8.

| | /s/
      Christopher Moreton     
| | ----------------------------------
| | Christopher Moreton, Ph.D., P.Geo.

Date: March 19, 2015

|RPA Inc.55
      University Ave. Suite 501 | Toronto, ON, Canada M5J 2H7 | T+1
      (416) 947 0907 | www.rpacan.com
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------

---
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)  In connection with the amended Annual Report of UTEC, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Fortunato Villamagna, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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/ Fortunato VillamagnaFortunato Villamagna, CEODated: January 29, 2010     Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)  In connection with the amended Annual Report of UTEC, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard Bouch, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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/ Howard Bouch________________________Howard Bouch CFODated: January 29, 2010
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Carreker Corporation (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, LisaK. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer, 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ LISA K.  PETERSON                     |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
| Lisa K. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Dated:  June 8, 2005

 

1

----