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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                            505,228
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,986,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,326,724
<INVENTORY>                                    51,451,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               63,253,645
<PP&E>                                          6,321,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,177,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 76,163,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          26,719,464
<BONDS>                                        34,240,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           52,016
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,151,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   76,163,168
<SALES>                                        29,224,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               29,224,502
<CGS>                                          18,235,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  28,150,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                711,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   361,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                      126,643
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               235,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      235,193
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.05


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gilbert Maurice Goudreau

v.

Elizabeth Ann Cyr

No. 06-fp-373

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide the defendant’s address and

to amend to set forth his claimed basis for subject matter

jurisdiction.

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-373-SM.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 9, 2007

cc: Gilbert Maurice Goudreau

Case 1:06-cv-00373-SM Document 5 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gary Dolan

v. Civil No. 06-cv-43-JD

Sungard, et al.

O R D E R

Upon review of the case file, the Court notes there are several pending motions, some of

which may effect the scope of trial. Therefore, the filing of pretrial statements, the Final Pretrial

Conference, and Trial are continued at this time and will be rescheduled, if necessary, after the Court

has made its rulings.

SO ORDERED.

April 26, 2007

cc: Gary Dolan, pro se

Dyana Tull, Esq.

Shannon Lynch, Esq.

William Hannum, III, Esq.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00043-JD Document 61 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 1
#### LEE LUMBER CO., Limited, v. MELCHER et al.

No. 7424.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 4, 1950.

Leo Gold, Donald M. Garrett, Alexandria, for appellants.

James R. Eubank, Alexandria, for appel-lee.

*633KENNON, Judge.

Alleging that -it was the owner of an -eighty acre tract of land in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, by virtue of a recited chain of title originating with a patent from the United States of America, and that defendants were in possession of a twenty-six acre portion as trespassers, plaintiff filed this suit to be recognized as owner and to be placed in possession of the described eighty acres.

In answer, defendants admitted that they had no recorded title, but set forth that they and their “ancestors in title and possession” had been in open and adverse possession for more than thirty years of a described twenty-six acre portion of the eighty acres, and prayed that their prescriptive title to same be recognized.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants prosecute this appeal.

The record discloses that plaintiff has a valid title to the property in question, and that there is ho ■ recorded title in defendants or in those to whom defendants refer as their “ancestors in title and possession.” About 1910, one Jim Honeycutt constructed improvements on the twenty-six acre tract and lived there in open and uninterrupted possession until 1921. ■ In that year, without recorded or written instrument, Jim Honeycutt turned the premises over to Louis Sanson, who went immediately into possession and remained in open possession until 1924, when John H. Melcher, the husband of one defendant and the father of the others, went into possession. Possession by the Melcher family began on the day Sanson moved and continued from 1924 to the date of the trial.

Defendants’ contention is that by adding their possession to that of Sanson and Honeycutt, a prescriptive title has been acquired since the total period of adverse possession is more than thirty years.

This question was discussed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the case of Buckley v. Catlett, 203 La. 54, 13 So.2d 384. There the Court reiterated that when the first possessor has no recorded title-, the possession of several successive possessors cannot be joined to-show a continuous adverse possession, in support of a plea of prescription of thirty years, unless there is á privity of estate or contract 'between the successive ' occupants. Since there i§ no privity of estate or contract between the defendants herein -and their predecessors in possession, it follows that the District Judge correctly ruled in favor of plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michelle Olivieri

v. Case No. 08-cv-37-PB

United States of America

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 1, Motion to Vacate Sentence - § 2255

Ruling: The petition is conclusory. Moreover, based on the

pre-sentence report and the additional facts outlined in the

government’s objection, it does not appear that the concession on

which the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based was

either improper or prejudicial. To state a viable claim for

relief, petitioner must explain why the concession she complains of

was improper and how it adversely affected the outcome. On or

before March 15, 2008, petitioner shall show cause as to why the

petition should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in this

order.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

Date: February 19, 2008

cc: Michelle Olivieri, pro se

 Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00037-PB Document 4 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-212-PB

Jeremy Hurd

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

December 4, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations or prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from December 4, 2007 to February 5, 2008. 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 1:07-cr-00212-PB Document 11 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 26, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to January 31, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 27, 2007

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00212-PB Document 11 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-226-01-PB

Jose Perez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

February 5, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to finalize a plea agreement. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 5, 2008 to April 1, 2008. 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 1:07-cr-00226-PB Document 15 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 24, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to March 28, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 24, 2008

cc: James Dennehy, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00226-PB Document 15 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 2
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1993...... 24 2 4 7 11 .121 .010 .018 .035 .054

1994...... 10 1 1 3 6 .048 .003 .003 .013 .026

1995...... 12 0 3 6 4 .055 -.001 .011 .027 .016

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... n.a. 1 5 2 n.a. n.a. .003 .012 .005 n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
Case 1:08-cv-00202-MML Document 17 Filed 08/01/08 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-00202-MML Document 17 Filed 08/01/08 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-00202-MML Document 17 Filed 08/01/08 Page 3 of 3
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 8, 2013

s0205

Order 

February 8, 2013

146461 & (3)(4)(5)

In re:

SC: 146461

The Honorable WADE H. McCREE,

3rd Circuit Court

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. 

The petition for interim suspension is considered, and it is GRANTED. The respondent 

Wayne Circuit Judge Wade H. McCree is suspended without pay, effective immediately, 

until further order of this Court. The respondent’s salary will be held in escrow pending 

the final resolution of these disciplinary proceedings. The motion to seal the Supreme 

Court file is also considered, and it is GRANTED, in order to preserve the confidentiality 

required by MCR 9.219(A)(2) and MCR 9.221(A). With the exception of this order, the 

Supreme Court file is suppressed and shall remain confidential until further order of this 

Court.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 16, 2017

NO. 03-15-00020-CV

James V. Long, Appellant

v.

Southwest Funding, L.P.; OneWest Bank, FSB; IndyMac Mortgage Services; 

and Deutsche Bank National Trust, Co., Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the orders signed by the trial court on January 21, 2014 and 

October 9, 2014. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that 

there was no reversible error in the trial court’s orders. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s orders. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in 

the court below.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 11, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-00376-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.O . AND J.R.O., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-50993-2016



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Stoddart, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill Before the Court is appellant’s pro se notice of nonsuit of his notice of appeal, which we treat as a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appe llant has informed the Court that he no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

160376F.P05 /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF J.O. AND J.R.O., CHILDREN

No. 05-16-00376-CV On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 429-50993-2016. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Myers and Stod dart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee Rosalee C. Olofernes re cover her costs of this appeal from appellant Jose Puerto Olofernes, Jr.

Judgment entered May 11, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joshua J . Hurd

v . Civil No. 07-cv-165-JD

FNJ Granville, et at .

ORDER

On January 9, 2009, Defendants' counsel filed an Assented to Motion to Continue Trial .

In error, the Motion was submitted and ruled on by another judge . Therefore, the Order granting this

Motion to Continue Trial is herewith vacated .

Upon my review of the motion, my order is as follows: Denied without prejudice to renew .

The motion does not set forth new dates and deadlines but merely asks for a blanket continuance

leaving the future of the case and triai preparations in limbo . This is not acceptable .

SO ORDERED.

January 12, 2009

United States District Judge

Aae~ N\

J sep A. DiClerico, Jr .

cc: Joshua J. Hurd, pro se

John Curran, Esq .

Elizabeth Hurley, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00165-JD Document 26 Filed 01/12/09 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BPZ Resources, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Manuel PabloZúñiga-Pflücker, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)          The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| */s/ Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker* |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Manuel Pablo  Zúñiga-Pflücker      |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer            |   |
| November 9, 2010                             |   |

 

----
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2005   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2006   | 0  | 0  | .  | .  | .     |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
 

MARKEM-IMAJE CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZIPHERLTD. 

and 

VIDEOJET TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
 

Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-06-PB 

(Consolidated Action) 

----------------) 

_ORDER ON UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT 

1. In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Markem·lmaje Corporation 

("Markem") seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,150,572 ("the '572 patent"). Markem also seeks a declaratory judgment that claim 1 of the 

'572 patent is invalid. 

2. Defendants Zipher Ltd. and Videojet Technologies, Inc. ("Zipher") assert claim 1 

of the '572 patent against Markem. Zipher's Amended Answer and Countetc1aim (Dkt. No. 43) 

accuses Markem's SmartDate 5, SmartDate 5 Advance and Series 18 thermal transfer printers of 

infringing claim 1 of the' 572 patent. 

3. On August 28, 2008, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order construing 

"drive" and "drivable" to mean, respectively, "rotate" and "rotatable." On September 1, 2009, 

the Court issued an Order construing the term "spools" to mean "more than one spool." On 

January 12, 2010, the Court granted Markem's motion for summary judgment that it has not 

Case 1:07-cv-00006-PB Document 129 Filed 03/08/10 Page 1 of 2
literally infringed the '572 patent. The Court construed the element "controls said motors to 

drive the spools to add or subtract the calculated length of tape to or from the tape extending 

between the spools" as limiting the claim to "tape drives in which both spools are rotated to 

achieve each discrete tape tension adjustment." The Court denied, without prejudice, Markem's 

motion for summary judgment that it has not infringed the '572 patent under the doctrine of 

equivalents. 

4. Zipher disagrees with the Court's summary judgment of no literal infringement 

and its construction of "drive," "drivable," and "controls said motors to drive the spools to add or 

subtract the calculated length of tape to or from the tape extending between the spools" and 

intends to appeal those rulings. 

5. Zipher has informed the Court that, based on the Court's construction of "drive," 

"drivable," and "controls said motors to drive the spools to add or subtract the calculated length 

of tape to or from the tape extending between the spools," Zipher does not dispute that Markem 

does not infringe claim I of the '572 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

6. Accordingly, judgment of noninfringement is hereby entered as to claim I of the 

'572 patent, as construed by this Court. 

7. All remaining claims by Markem, including its claim of invalidity of claim 1 of 

the' 572 patent, are dismissed without prejudice, subject to reinstatement on remand. 

SO ORDERED. 

March 8, 2010 lsI Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro 

United States District Judge 

cc~ Counsel of Record 

2 

Case 1:07-cv-00006-PB Document 129 Filed 03/08/10 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22622]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13254-000]


City of Aspen; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted 
for Filing and Soliciting Comment and Motions To Intervene

September 19, 2008.
    On July 10, 2008, the City of Aspen filed an application, pursuant 
to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the 
feasibility of the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project, to be located on 
Castle Creek in Pitkin County, Colorado.
    The proposed Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) 
The City of Aspen's ``Thomas Reservoir'', a small impoundment 
constructed in 1964 as a part of Aspen's Water Treatment Facilities, 
(2) a single underground penstock that would replace two (out of 
service) underground penstocks (3) a proposed powerhouse with a single 
vertical shaft Pelton turbine coupled to a synchronous generator having 
a total installed capacity of 1.05 megawatts, (4) a new tailrace from 
the powerhouse that will deliver flows to Castle Creek just above the 
existing bridge, and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would have 
an annual generation of 7.7 million kilowatt-hours that would be 
delivered to the City system.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Phil Overyender, Director of Public Works, 
City of Aspen, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611; phone: (970) 920-
5111.
    FERC Contact: Alyssa Dorval, (202) 502-6735.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from 
the issuance of this notice. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of 
intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the 
Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the 
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be 
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an 
original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, 
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to submit these types 
of filings please go to the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project 
can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web 
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket 
number (P-13254) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22622 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P