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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000075448
<NAME> NSTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,497<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,484
<ALLOWANCES>                                        44
<INVENTORY>                                      7,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,441
<PP&E>                                           7,006<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                     524<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,963
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           934
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,123
<SALES>                                         14,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,647
<CGS>                                            9,849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,192)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,192)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,192)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Cash includes $1,000 of restricted cash (note 5 to Consolidated Financial
Statements).
<F2>Property and equipment includes $5,342 of goodwill and other intangible assets.
<F3>Accumulated depreciation includes $261 of accumulated amortization.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 1 of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 14th day of May,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Valley Regional Medical Center, Appellant,

v.

Maria Guadalupe Camacho Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00004-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 2013-CCL-488)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 31st day of August, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK

FILE COPY
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   Exhibit 12

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
-------------------------------------------------
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands)


                                                   September 30,   December 31,
                                                        1997           1996
                                                   -------------   ------------



Short-term debt.................................. $     258,700         66,500
Current portion of long-term debt................        51,500         38,200
Long-term debt...................................       611,300        554,600
                                                  -------------    ----------- 
     Total debt..................................       921,500        659,300
Minority interests in subsidiaries...............        70,200         85,500
Common shareholders' equity......................     2,573,100      2,755,900
                                                  -------------    ----------- 
     Total capitalization........................ $   3,564,800      3,500,700
                                                  =============    ===========
                                                                  
                                                                


Ratio of total debt to total capitalization......          25.9%          18.8%
                                                  =============    ===========
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AM A ZING STEWAR T, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. L. B R OW

N; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15178 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-01093-LJO-JLT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . C a lifornia sta te prisone r Am a z ing Ste wart a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing for fa ilure to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e d ie s his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging a fa ilure -to-prote c t c la im . W e have jurisdic tion



# F IL ED AUG 20 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Sapp v . K imbre ll , 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th C ir. 2010), a

n d we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t Ste wart fa ile d to e xha

ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s be c a

use Ste wart did not notify prison offic ia ls a s to the nature of the wrong unde rly ing his fa ilure -to-prote c t c l a im in a tim e ly m anne r. Se e id . at 818, 821-24 (de sc ribing sta nda rd for prope r e xha

ustion a nd e xpla ining tha

t an inm ate ’ s grie va

nc e m ust c om ply with tim e lim i ts a

nd providee nough inform at ion to a le rt prison offic ia ls to thenature of the wrong for whic h re dre ss is sought); Griffin v . Arpaio , 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th C ir. 2009) (grie va nc e m ust give suffic ie nt notic e of c l a im ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 5 1 7 8 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Waisome, Appellant.

[677 NYS2d 491]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered October 10, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation constitute reversible error *777are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Zephir,*226 AD2d 408). In any event, the comments made by the prosecutor during summation were either fair comment on the evidence, permissive rhetorical comment, responsive to the defendant’s summation *(see, People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105; *People v Turner,*214 AD2d 594), or were not so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Miller, J. P., Kraus man, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### Randy P. RUMSEY, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.

No. 02-2039.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2002.

Decided Nov. 12, 2002.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Randy P. Rumsey appeals from the district court’s1 dismissal, for lack of juris*790diction, of his petition for review of an agency determination that his claim for disability insurance benefits was barred by administrative res judicata. We affirm. A federal district court’s jurisdiction to review decisions regarding disability benefits is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). That section provides for review only of a “final decision of the Commissioner ... made after a hearing.” An agency’s application of res judicata2 or refusal to reopen a prior determination is not a “final decision” within the meaning of section 405(g). *King v. Chater,*90 F.3d 323, 325 (8th Cir. 1996). But there is a narrow exception where the Commissioner reconsiders the merits of an application previously denied. Id. (citing *Jelinek v. Heckler,*764 F.2d 507, 508 (8th Cir.1985)). Such a claim is treated as having been reopened as a matter of administrative discretion and is, therefore, subject to judicial review to the extent it has been reopened. *Id.*

The Commissioner dismissed Rumsey’s current application for disability insurance benefits as duplicative of an earlier, unsuccessful claim that alleged the same disability. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) dismissed Rumsey’s present claim as barred by the final decision in his earlier claim. The ALJ did not consider the merits of the earlier claim, but, as the district court noted, merely “made a threshold inquiry into the facts and evidence of the previous application to determine if the regulatory requirements for reopening the previous claim had been met.” Because the ALJ did not reopen Rumsey’s earlier claim, and because its dismissal for res judicata was not a “final decision” within the purview of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we have no jurisdiction to review it. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge.

2

. Under the Commissioner’s regulations, a request for a hearing may be dismissed as precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. 20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c)(1). And this court has endorsed the application of res judicata in an administrative context. *Rush v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs.,*738 F.2d 909, 914 (8th Cir. 1984).
Exhibit 23.3




CONSENT OF SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION





As independent petroleum engineers, Data & Consulting Services Division of Schlumberger Technology Corporation hereby consents to the inclusion or incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-149190), Form S-3 (No. 333¬159888), Form S-3/A (No. 333-153579) and Form S-4 (No. 333-171773), and the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended 31 December 2010 of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. of information from our firm’s reserve report dated 28 January 2011, entitled Reserve and Economic Evaluation Of Proved Reserves Of Certain BreitBurn Management Company, LLC Illinois and Michigan Basin Oil And Gas Interests As Of 31 December 2010 Executive Summaryand all references to our firm included in or
made part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended 31 December 2010 of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P.





SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION




By: /s/ Charles M. Boyer II





Charles M. Boyer II PG


Advisor Unconventional Reservoirs


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


9 March 2011
#### Ike LA HOOD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4462.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Sept. 7, 1934.

Hardin & Coleman, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Pegues & Pegues, of Mansfield, for appel-lee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a companion case of ease No. 4458 on the docket of this court, 156 So. 366, decided this day.

, Eor the reasons assigned in case No. 4458, the judgment of the lower court in this case is reversed, and the demands of plaintiff are rejected, at his cost in both courts.
No. 72-1063.

#### Unger *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 2000 OF PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         245,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  648,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    441,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,618,100
<PP&E>                                       9,089,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,149,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,022,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,469,800
<BONDS>                                      2,031,600
<COMMON>                                       492,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,663,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,022,300
<SALES>                                      3,426,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,426,000
<CGS>                                        2,701,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,701,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               438,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             163,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,900
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Commercial Property
Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending January
31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we, David C. Merrell, President and Kristine
M. Rogers, Secretary/Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Dated: 3/13/2006                          /s/David C. Merrell
      ----------                          -------------------------
                                          David C. Merrell
                                          President and Director


Dated: 3/13/2006                          /s/Kristine M. Rogers
      ----------                          -------------------------
                                          Kristine M. Rogers
                                          Secretary and Treasurer
##### 



Exhibit 10.17
 AMENDMENT/EXTENSION OF
OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY
 THIS
AMENDMENT/EXTENSION 30 March David M. Czech and Delores R. Czech, Agassiz Energy, LLC,
 WITNESSETH THAT:
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:




---



##### 



1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
 1 4 1 4
 1 4 1 4
 1 4 1 4
 1 4 1 4
 -2-




---



##### 



SELLERS:
    
    
    
    PURCHASER:AGASSIZ ENERGY, LLC/s/ David M.CzechDAVID M. CZECHBy
    
    /s/  Donald SargeantIts
    
    Chief Manager/s/
Delores R. CzechDELORES R. CZECHBy
    
    /s/  Larry AltringerIts
    
    Treasurer
 -3-




---



##### 



STATE OF MINNESOTA
    
    
    ))
    
    
    ss.COUNTY OF SIBLEY
    
    
    )
 30th March David M. Czech and Delores R. Czech,
 /s/  Joan R. DoseNotary Public, Sibley
County, MNMy Comm. Expires: Jan 31st, 2009[Joan R. Dose Seal]
 STATE OF MINNESOTA
    
    
    ))
    
    
    ss.COUNTY OF POLK
    
    
    )
 9th Donald Sargeant Larry Altringer, Agassiz Energy, LLC,
 /s/  Daniel L. Rust(SEAL)
    
    Notary Public, Polk County,
MNMy Comm. Expires:
 
 -4-
Exhibit 32.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



August 5, 2004
                                               /S/ NEAL E. SCHMALE
                                              ______________________
                                               Neal E. Schmale
                                               Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sentry Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Arne Raabe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 26th day of May, 2009.

| |     |                                                   
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                   
| | BY: | ARNE RAABEArne Raabe, 
Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
 32



CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
 connection with the report on Form 10-K ofHigh End Ventures, Inc.
 for the annual period endedSeptember
 30, 2008
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
 hereof, I,Kurt Dalmata,
 do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
 best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | This 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 this report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for the period
covered by this report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
 January 13,
 2009





/s/
 Kurt Dalmata

Kurt
 Dalmata,
 Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  This
 certification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
 required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by
 the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities
 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
 of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement
 required by §906 has been provided to the registrantand
 will be retained by the registrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
 upon request.



30
#### Paul O. HYNARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK & POLICE DEPARTMENT, (Detectives), Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 01-0297.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 4, 2002.

Paul O. Hynard, pro se, Yonkers, NY, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

Present FEINBERG, JACOBS and SACK, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.

Paul O. Hynard, *pro se,*appeals from the grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Hynard alleges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office wrongfully decided not to prosecute three men against whom Hynard allegedly holds an unsatisfied civil default judgment.

The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of absolute prosecutorial discretion. We agree. *See, e.g., Fields v. Soloff,*920 F.2d 1114, 1119 (2d Cir.1990) (finding absolute immunity for prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute, and noting that “civil damages under section 1983 are inappropriate” in such cases). .

We are also satisfied that Hynard fully appreciated the nature and consequences of the summary judgment motion, despite the lack of evidence that either the defendants or the district court provided him this information. Hynard’s response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion pointed out factual disputes, included many pages of exhibits, and asked the court to grant summary judgment in his favor. Hynard thus demonstrated that he “understood the consequences of a sum*49mary judgment motion and the requirements of a successful response.” *See M.B. #11072-054 v. Reish,*119 F.3d 230, 232 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.