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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,257,142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   118,261
<INVENTORY>                                  2,365,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,945,145
<PP&E>                                         292,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                 134,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,253,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,920,697
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,981,681
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,253,735
<SALES>                                      5,357,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,357,864
<CGS>                                        3,840,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,785,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                588,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                   237,219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   350,992
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Jack L. HERRONEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF IRONWOOD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1110.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2003.

Before GILMAN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; and JORDAN, District Judge.*

The Honorable Leon Jordan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

*522
      *ORDER*

Jack L. Herronen, a Michigan citizen, appeals pro se the summary judgment for defendants in a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Herronen filed this complaint against the City of Ironwood, Michigan, and numerous employees of the city. He complained that defendants had evicted tenants from a duplex he owned and ordered him to make repairs to the building without giving him any notice. Herronen alleged that these actions violated his right to due process and his right to contract, and constituted an illegal search and seizure, a bill of attainder, and a retroactive enforcement of a statute. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied Herronen’s motion and granted defendants’ motion. On appeal, Herronen reasserts his claims of a due process violation of his right to contract only.

Upon review, we conclude that the summary judgment for defendants must be affirmed, as there is no genuine issue of material fact and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In order to state a claim of a denial of due process, Herronen was required to establish the existence of a protected property interest. *Hamilton v. Myers,*281 F.3d 520, 529 (6th Cir.2002); *Ferencz v. Hairston,*119 F.3d 1244, 1247 (6th Cir. 1997). In this case, the district court properly concluded that, because Herronen had failed to register his rental properties or have them inspected, as required by the city’s housing code, he had no right to enter into contracts to rent the properties. Therefore, he had no legitimate property interest that was subject to the protection of due process.

Herronen has abandoned his claims of illegal search, bill of attainder, and retroactive enforcement of a statute on appeal, and this court therefore need not review those portions of the district court’s judgment. *Boyd v. Ford Motor Co.,*948 F.2d 283, 284 (6th Cir.1991).

The summary judgment for defendants is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

United States 

v. 

Case No. 05-cr-95-01-SM 

Curshaw Barnett 

ORDER 

R e: Document No. 142, Demand 

Ruling: Granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk shall 

mail a copy of the docket sheet in this case to defendant. The 

request for transcripts and possible video tapes is inadequately 

supported - i.e. defendant has not demonstrated any need for such 

material relevant to any legitimate issue involved in this case. See 

e.g. Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 495 (1963); Lugo v. Munoz, 

682 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1982). Finally, the record discloses that 

defendant elected to represent himself, which request was granted 

by the Magistrate Judge, and that Attorney Ramsdell was appointed 

as stand-by counsel only. Defendant is not required to take 

advantage of stand-by counsel's assistance, but stand-by counsel 

shall remain available to defendant and the court. 

Date: January 4, 2013 

Steven J. McAuliffe 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:05-cr-00095-SM Document 144 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  September 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc.
Address:   388 Greenwich Street
           New York, New York 10013

Form 13F File Number:              28-1109

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Howard M. Darmstadter
Title:     Assistant Secretary
Phone:     (212) 793-7392

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Howard M. Darmstadter        New York, New York     November 12, 1999
-------------------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
PROJCS["Old_Hawaiian_StatePlane_Hawaii_3_FIPS_5103",GEOGCS["GCS_Old_Hawaiian",DATUM["D_Old_Hawaiian",SPHEROID["Clarke_1866",6378206.4,294.9786982]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",500000.0],PARAMETER["False_Northing",0.0],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",-158.0],PARAMETER["Scale_Factor",0.99999],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",21.16666666666667],UNIT["Foot_US",0.3048006096012192]]
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21413]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-920-1310-08; TXNM 118200]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
TXNM 118200

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 118200 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 affect 
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 118200, 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. E8-21413 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Murial Landau, Appellant. National Viewtech Corporation, Respondent; Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Levine, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 26, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

*761Claimant was denied unemployment insurance benefits based upon a determination by an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) that she had voluntarily quit her job without justification. Claimant appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, maintaining that she had been subject to repeated harassment by the employer and that this constituted "good cause” for quitting. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and this appeal by claimant ensued.

Following the submission of this appeal, this court has been advised that claimant and the employer have entered into a conciliation agreement settling an employment discrimination proceeding pending before the State Division of Human Rights. Paragraph 6 of this agreement provides that the employer "agrees not to make any further objection to [claimant] receiving [unemployment insurance] benefits”. In light of this agreement, the matter should now be remitted to the Board "to afford it an opportunity to consider what effect, if any, should be given to this agreement” *(Matter of Bernet [Hartnett],*149 AD2d 834, 835).

Decision reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                       537
<INVENTORY>                                     25,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,822
<PP&E>                                         121,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,737
<BONDS>                                         21,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,549
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,285
<SALES>                                        123,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,370
<CGS>                                          104,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,819
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,651
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59<F1>
<FN>
<F1>PER SHARE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TWO FOR ONE STOCK
SPLIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1Kathy Martinson is not a party in this action. John

Martinson is proceeding pro se and cannot represent his wife. 

Nevertheless the court will take notice of his request, on her

behalf, for a protective order to cancel her deposition. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Federal Trade Commission

v. Civil No. 04-cv-377-JD

Seismic Entertainment

Productions, Inc., et al.

O R D E R

John Robert Martinson, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion

for a protective order, on behalf of his wife, Kathy Martinson,

and a separate motion to strike the FTC’s first set of

interrogatories to him and to cancel his deposition.1 On March

16, 2006, the court granted the FTC’s motion to reopen discovery

into the amount of a monetary judgment that would be appropriate

with respect to Martinson. Martinson contends that all possible

information that is sought in the FTC’s interrogatories and that

could be provided in the depositions has already been provided

through subpoenas for financial documents and information to

certain people and institutions. Because Martinson represents

that his wife’s deposition is scheduled for April 26, 2006, and

to avoid further delay in resolving this case, the court is

addressing his motions before the FTC has had an opportunity to

respond. 

Case 1:04-cv-00377-JD Document 117 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The deposition of Kathy Martinson scheduled for April 26,

2006, is cancelled. The FTC shall review the information that it

has received and determine whether the depositions of the

Martinsons and any additional information in response to the

interrogatories are necessary. If, after its review, the FTC

believes that it requires additional information from John or

Kathy Martinson, the FTC shall filed a motion seeking leave to

conduct additional discovery and explaining the purpose of that

additional discovery.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for a

protective order (document no. 114) is granted. The defendant’s

motion to strike (document no. 115) is terminated. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 20, 2006

cc: Stacey P. Ferguson, Esquire

David P. Frankel, Esquire

Charulata B. Pagar, Esquire

Laura M. Sullivan, Esquire

Martha Van Oot, Esquire

John McFerrin Clancy, Esquire

John Robert Martinson, pro se

Case 1:04-cv-00377-JD Document 117 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

Board of Trustees and Shareholders
Security Capital Pacific Trust


Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements Nos. 33-25317, 333-4455, 333-12885, 333-24035,  
     and 333-26267

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated August 13, 1997 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, 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.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 

Chicago, Illinois
August 14, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,322
<SECURITIES>                                     4,510
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,804
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (352)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,824
<PP&E>                                          15,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (5,895)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,634
<BONDS>                                          5,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,646
<COMMON>                                         3,683
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,708
<SALES>                                         54,172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,172
<CGS>                                           45,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,602
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,723
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,879
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (594)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.23
        

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

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 13, 2017.

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, April 13, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0348. DARRIUS ZANDERS v. THE STATE.

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

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

CR1500853
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-114-01-PB

Angela Hearn

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the December 6, 2005

trial in the above case citing the need for additional time to

engage in further plea negotiations. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from December 6, 2005 to February

7, 2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00114-PB Document 12 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 21, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until January 30, 2006 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 21, 2005

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00114-PB Document 12 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregg Blackstock

v. Case No. 04-cv-305-SM

New Hampshire State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated December 2, 2009, no objection having been filed, for the reasons

set forth therein. Petitioner’ s petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby

dismissed for inclusion of unexhausted claims.

Additionally, finding that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c)(2); Rule 11, Rules Governing

Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254; First Cir. LR 22.0.

SO ORDERED.

December 23, 2009 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Laura E.B. Lombardi, Esq. 

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SM Document 21 Filed 12/23/09 Page 1 of 1