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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-20-1997
<CASH>                                            1184
<SECURITIES>                                        11
<RECEIVABLES>                                    26675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      46299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 75889
<PP&E>                                           91182
<DEPRECIATION>                                   53105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  115063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            23520
<BONDS>                                          26907
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4990
<OTHER-SE>                                       52992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    115063
<SALES>                                          70744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 70744
<CGS>                                            56418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    67332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2372
<INCOME-TAX>                                       856
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1516
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 09, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 09, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0080. GORMAN JENKINS v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

94CR85 18CV325
#### HALL v. WYATT LUMBER CO., Inc., et al.

No. 6182.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. *1,*1940.

Wood & Wood, of Leesville, for appellant.

J. S. Pickett, of Many, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff sues to recover workmen’s compensation for the period of alleged total disability, July 28, 1938 to November 28th following, and for expenses incurred to alleviate the effects of a superficial or first-degree burn on his back, experienced on the first date, while performing the duties *468of his employment with one of the defendants. Defendants denied specifically all the essential allegations of the petition except that of employment. Plaintiff’s demand was rejected and his suit dismissed. He brings appeal.

Plaintiff, while firing a boiler at night, backed into a steam pipe and received though his clothing the burn above mentioned. He made no report of the injury to any official of his employer, but, after the lapse of two or three days, consulted the company physician, who administered appropriate treatment. This physician testified that within three or four days the wound had completely healed. Pie did not consider the injury sufficiently serious to make report thereof to either company. However, very soon thereafter a malignant carbuncle near the situs of the burn developed. It was treated by said physician for some time and was finally lanced. Not being satisfied with the progress of treatment, this doctor advised plaintiff to go to the Charity Hospital in Shreveport for further medical attention. He did so and remained there some two weeks. After returning home the carbuncle again became a source of pain and discomfort and he returned to the hospital for further treatment. He resumed work on November 27th, and continued to do so until December 15th, when discharged. From the time of the burn to about February 1st, plaintiff mentioned to no one the asserted claim or right to compensation for the period sued for. He daily performed his duties from the time of the burn until the carbuncle was lanced.

Plaintiff denies that he was afflicted with a carbuncle. He contends that infection set up in the burn wound and that this necessitated the abandonment of work to make the trips to and remain in the hospital.

The testimony in the case' leaves no doubt that plaintiff was afflicted with a carbuncle, and that this, and not the injury from the • burn, forced him to quit work. There is no testimony whatever which, in the least, tends to establish causal connection between the burn injury and the carbuncle. The only physician who testified was of the opinion that the wound did not produce the carbuncle. It evidently was of independent origin. In the absence of proof of causal connection, we are not authorized to infer that such existed; and, this being true, it cannot be said that plaintiff’s disability to work resulted from the performance of services arising out of and incidental to his employment.

The judgment appealed from appears to be eminently correct. It is affirmed with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2129]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-920-08-1310FI; TXNM 106958]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
TXNM 106958

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Class II provisions of Title IV, Public Law 97-451, 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a Petition for 
Reinstatement of Oil and Gas Lease TXNM 106958 from the lessee, Sun-
West Oil and Gas Inc., for lands in Trinity County, Texas. The petition 
was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the 
date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico 
State Office, at (505) 438-7586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No valid lease has been issued that affects 
the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and 
royalties of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 16 \2/
3\ percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500.00 
administrative fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $166.00 cost 
for publishing this Notice in the Federal Register. The lessee met all 
the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in sections 
31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We 
are proposing to reinstate lease TXNM 106958, effective the date of 
termination, September 1, 2007, under the original terms and conditions 
of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Lourdes B. Ortiz,
Land Law Examiner.
 [FR Doc. E8-2129 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
#### Jerry Levenstein, Respondent, v Elizabeth A. Parks et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated September 6, 1988, which denied their motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The automobile accident which gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in Richmond County on January 22, 1986, between a car driven by the plaintiff and a car driven by the defendant Elizabeth A. Parks and owned by the defendant Jiffy Auto Rental. Both Parks and Jiffy Auto Rental are residents of New Jersey. This action was commenced in Kings County based on the claimed residence of the plaintiff (the plaintiff now concedes he no longer lives in Kings County). Shortly *368after issue was joined, the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change the venue of the action to Richmond County, based on the convenience of material witnessés and to promote the ends of justice.

Failing to show they had actually contacted witnesses allegedly residing in Richmond County, the movants relied chiefly on Richmond County as having been the place where the accident occurred, the place where the police investigated and the place where the plaintiff was hospitalized. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding it was no undue hardship for witnesses to travel from Richmond County to Kings County.

The choice of venue initially resides with plaintiff *(see,*CPLR 503 [a]; 509). Whether to grant a motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue upon the ground that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will thereby be promoted rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court *(see, Resnick v Karmax Camp Corp.,*112 AD2d 206). On a motion made pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), the defendant is required to supply the names, addresses and occupations of the witnesses whose convenience will be affected, indicate they have been contacted, and specify the substance of each witness’s testimony, which must be necessary and material upon the trial of the action *(see, Jansen v Bernhang,*149 AD2d 468, 469; *see also, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.,*150 AD2d 742; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C510:3).

Here, the defendants’ speculations that the convenience of Richmond County witnesses likely to testify required a change of venue were insufficient to support the motion *(see, Jansen v Bernhang, supra; Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., supra).*Furthermore, the presence of police and hospital records in Richmond County demonstrated no real inconvenience since Richmond County is adjacent to Kings County *(see, Shavaknbeyn v Starrett City,*161 AD2d 626). Thompson, J. P., Fiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53273-53274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-920-1310-08; TXNM 118211]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
TXNM 118211

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

[[Page 53274]]


ACTION: Notice of Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Class II provisions of Title IV, Public Law 97-451, 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement of oil and gas lease TXNM 118211 from the lessee, 
Woodward Development LLC, for lands in Houston County, Texas. The 
petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due 
since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico 
State Office, at (505) 438-7586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No valid lease has been issued that affects 
the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and 
royalties of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 16\2/3\ 
percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500.00 
administrative fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $166.00 cost 
for publishing this Notice in the Federal Register. The lessee met all 
the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 
31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We 
are proposing to reinstate lease TXNM 118211, effective the date of 
termination, June 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of 
the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
Lourdes B. Ortiz,
Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team.
[FR Doc. E8-21417 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
Exhibit 5.1

                         Citizens Communications Company
                                3 High Ridge Road
                               Stamford, CT 06905
                                 (203) 614-5600


                                  May 29, 2008


Citizens Communications Company
3 High Ridge Park
Stamford, CT  06905

         Re:   Statement on Form S-8
               ---------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     I have acted as counsel to Citizens  Communications Company (the "Company")
in connection  with the  preparation and filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission   of  the   Company's   Registration   Statement  on  Form  S-8  (the
"Registration  Statement")  under the Securities  Act of 1933, as amended,  with
respect to 3,000,000  shares of the Company's  common stock, par value $0.25 per
share (the "Common  Stock"),  that may be issued under the terms of the Citizens
Communications  Company  Amended and Restated  2000 Equity  Incentive  Plan (the
"Plan").

     In so acting, I have examined  originals or copies  (certified or otherwise
identified to my satisfaction) of the Registration  Statement and such corporate
records,  agreements,  documents and other instruments, and such certificates or
comparable  documents of public officials and of officers and representatives of
the Company,  and have made such inquiries of such officers and  representatives
as I have deemed relevant and necessary as a basis for the opinions  hereinafter
set forth.

     In such examination,  I have assumed the genuineness of all signatures, the
legal  capacity  of all  natural  persons,  the  authenticity  of all  documents
submitted  to me as  originals,  the  conformity  to original  documents  of all
documents submitted to me as certified,  conformed or photostatic copies and the
authenticity of the originals of such latter  documents.  As to all questions of
fact material to these opinions that have not been independently  established, I
have  relied  upon   certificates  or  comparable   documents  of  officers  and
representatives of the Company.

     Based on the foregoing,  and subject to the qualifications stated herein, I
am of the opinion  that the Common  Stock to be issued  pursuant to the terms of
the Plan have been duly authorized  and, when issued,  delivered and paid for in
accordance with the terms of the Plan,  will be validly  issued,  fully paid and
non-assessable.  The opinions expressed herein are limited to the corporate laws
of the State of  Delaware  and the  federal  laws of the  United  States,  and I
express no opinion as to the effect on the  matters  covered by this  opinion of
the laws of any other jurisdiction.

<PAGE>

     I  hereby  consent  to  the  use  of  this  letter  as an  exhibit  to  the
Registration Statement.

                                  Very truly yours,

                                  /s/ Hilary E. Glassman

                                  Hilary E. Glassman
                                  Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
                                  Secretary
                                  Admitted in New York only
exv10wxwy



 






Exhibit 10(w)




Description of Executive Financial Planning Program




          Wells Fargo & Company provides certain senior level officers with a personal financial
planning benefit to aid them in their financial, estate and tax planning. Under this program, the
Company will pay the annual cost of the AYCO financial planning program or will reimburse expenses
up to $20,000 per calendar year for covered financial planning and/or tax preparation fees.
##### 



EXHIBIT 15.1 The Trustee
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust: Re: Registration Statements Nos. 333-103952 (Form S-3), 333-114394 (Form S-3), and 333-124163 (Form
S-3). With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use
therein of our report dated May 3, 2005, related to our review of interim financial information. Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a report
prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. /s/ KPMG LLP Denver, Colorado
May 3, 2005
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of Archstone-SmithOperating Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the ”Issuer”),hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “PeriodicReport”) of the Issuer for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 whichaccompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.§78m(a)) and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Issuer.

 

Date: November 9, 2007

 
|   | /s/ R. SCOT SELLERS                      |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | R. Scot Sellers, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 16

- 00284

- CV

T ERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC.

, Appellant

v.

R OMA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

, Appellee

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 14

- 289

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2016

DIS MISSED

The appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for mootness. The motion conta ins

a certificate of service to appellee, and a certificate of conference indicating that appellee does not

oppose the motion. We therefore grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a),

43.2(f). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties who have incurred them.

PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00345-CR

Spergel Polk

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1383939D)

May 12, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1700

PAUL KULP HOFFMAN,

Petitioner,

versus

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, J. R. STARKEY; HARRY

BENDER; BETH WARD; SHIRLEY M. KRIEZEL,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Internal Revenue Service.

(No. 0090-0)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Kulp Hoffman, Petitioner Pro Se. Margaret Milner Richardson,

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; Beth Ward,

Asheville, North Carolina; Shirley M. Kriezel, Asheville, North

Carolina, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 703 (1994); International Bhd. of Teamsters

v. Pena, 17 F.3d 1478 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994).

3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

4 See Rettinger v. FTC, 392 F.2d 454, 457 (2d Cir. 1968);

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. FPC, 181 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C. Cir.

1950).

2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Hoffman, who disputes whether federal income tax laws

apply to him, insisted on filing a civil complaint in this court

against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking injunctive

relief and monetary damages. Hoffman asserts that the IRS is maliciously persecuting him in its attempt to collect taxes. Additionally, Hoffman claims that the IRS failed to comply with the

Freedom of Information Act. We dismiss this complaint for a lack of

jurisdiction.

We find no merit to Hoffman's contention that this court automatically has jurisdiction to review actions by a federal agency.

Unless statute provides otherwise, persons seeking review of agency

action must go first to the federal district court rather than the

court of appeals.1 This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders,2 and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.3 The

agency action of which Hoffman complains is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

However, Hoffman is not without a remedy. Nothing prevents him

from seeking relief in the district court.4 Upon Hoffman's com-
3

plaint that the IRS violated his rights in its collection efforts,

the district court can develop a record and reach a decision that

will give due consideration to Hoffman's claims.

Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint without prejudice to

Hoffman's right to seek relief in another forum. Additionally, we

deny Hoffman's request for subpoena duces tecum. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
officers of Rand Capital Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: November 7, 2018 /s/ Allen F. GrumAllen F. Grum, President(Chief Executive Officer) Dated: November 7, 2018 /s/ Daniel P. PenberthyDaniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E R R A T U M

January 18, 2006 

Appeal No. 05-1215 

Koepnick Med. & Educ. Research Found., L.L.C. v. Alcon Labs. Inc.

Non-precedential opinion 

Decided: December 28, 2005 

Page 9, line 18, “radial lasers” has been changed to “excimer lasers”