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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial  statements of Amscan Holdings,  Inc. as of September 30, 1999 and for
the nine months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001024729
<NAME>                        Amscan Holdings, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (9,921)
<INVENTORY>                                     62,174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,798
<PP&E>                                         102,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (40,811)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,646
<BONDS>                                        267,847
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (89,698)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,047
<SALES>                                        224,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               224,496
<CGS>                                          142,301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,263
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,349
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,411
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,934
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,934
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 880 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 17, 2007.
    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the 
Honorable Julia Carson, a Representative from the State of Indiana.
    Resolved,  That a committee of such Members of the House as the Speaker may 
designate, together with such Members of the Senate as may be joined, be 
appointed to attend the funeral.
    Resolved,  That the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House be authorized and directed 
to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of these 
resolutions and that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid out 
of applicable accounts of the House.
    Resolved,  That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and 
transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved,  That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark 
of respect to the memory of the deceased.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Barbara Puco, Respondent, v Ronald DeFeo, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 719]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Skelos, J.), entered November 21, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of divorce entered October 29, 1999, upon his failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment of divorce entered upon his failure to appear or answer the verified complaint. The affidavit of the process server constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) *(see NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v Nillas,*288 AD2d 279; *Wieck v Halpern,*255 AD2d 438; *Green Point Sav. Bank v Clark,*253 AD2d 514). The defendant failed to submit a sworn denial of service or swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit *(see Silverman v Deutsch,*283 AD2d 478; *Walkes v Benoit,*257 AD2d 508; *European Am. Bank v Abramoff,*201 AD2d 611). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the default.

We have not considered correspondence from the Department of Correctional Services submitted on appeal which is dehors the record before the Supreme Court *(see Shpak v New York City Tr. Auth.,*292 AD2d 590; *Penta v Related Cos.,*286 AD2d 674). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Krausman, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 860 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 12, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department 
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived.
    Sec. 2.  The House being in possession of the official papers, the managers 
on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on H.R. 3093 shall be, and they are hereby, discharged to the end that 
H.R. 3093 and its accompanying papers, be, and they are hereby, laid on the 
table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 1:11-cv-02372-CMA-MJW Document 12 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02372-CMA-MJW Document 12 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02372-CMA-MJW Document 12 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-88,623-02 AND WR-88,623-03

EX PARTE RICHARD ANTHONY BARTHOLOMEW, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 1319078-A AND 1321170-A IN THE 262ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to imprisonment.

Applicant filed the habeas applications on April 24, 2017. The trial court entered orders

designating issues, which ordered a response from trial counsel. There is no response in the habeas

records or findings from the trial court. The applications are remanded to the trial court to allow the

trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law

resolving the disputed factual issues.
2

The applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. 

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: June 5, 2019

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  ZAPWORLD.COM  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER  30,  2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          3,536
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (53)
<INVENTORY>                                     1,708
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                7,801
<PP&E>                                            996
<DEPRECIATION>                                    489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,354
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           2,768
<PREFERRED>                                     2,768
<COMMON>                                       13,809
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,087)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,061
<SALES>                                         8,128
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                8,263
<CGS>                                           5,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   4,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (53)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (53)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (27)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,014)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.37)


</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cv-01984-CMA-MJW Document 19 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-01984-CMA-MJW Document 19 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-01984-CMA-MJW Document 19 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS

KATHRYN KIPLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Minnesota

Division of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Amend []Doc. no. 15]

Scheduling Order [docket no. 25, filed April 16, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and the parties shall designate all

experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)

on or before April 20, 2012, and the parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide

opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before May 21,

2012.

DATED: April 17, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 27 Filed 04/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 National Holdings Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Robert H. Daskal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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














/s/
      Robert H. Daskal


Robert
      H.
      Daskal


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      2,
      2007




-26-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-121- 01 -PB

Christopher Aldrich

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the January 8, 2008 trial in the above case. 

Defendant cites the need for additional time in order for his expert witness to meet with him for

the in-person part of the evaluations. The parties are still exploring plea negotiations. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time to continue exploring plea

negotiations and to meet for in-person part of the evaluations, the court will continue the trial

from January 8, 2008 to April 1, 2008. In agreeing to continue the trial, the count 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 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 50 Filed 12/30/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The final pretrial conference is continued until March 27 , 2008 at 3:00 PM. 

SO ORDERED.

December 30, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Terry Ollila, Esq.

Sven Wiberg, Esq.

U. S. Probation

U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00121-PB Document 50 Filed 12/30/07 Page 2 of 2
#### BAUGHMAN v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00366-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ANA ISABEL JAIMES-OCAMPO,

Defendant.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#12) on October 12, 2011, by Defendant. The Court construes this Notice as a motion to change

his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’ plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for November 16, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. and a

Sentencing hearing is set for February 6, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. in the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The final trial preparation conference set for November 18, 2011, and the

Case 1:11-cr-00366-MSK Document 13 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
November 21, 2011, trial date are VACATED.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00366-MSK Document 13 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01954-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01954-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01954-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01954-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
#### Samei Jamal et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Pravina V. Gohel, Respondent-Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 879]

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated March 18, 2004, as, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant 51% at fault in the happening of the accident and awarding them the sum of $400,000 for past pecuniary loss and $0 for future pecuniary *588loss, denied that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which was to set aside the verdict as to damages for future pecuniary loss as against the weight of the evidence and to grant a new trial on that issue and (2), as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of the same court dated October 18, 2004, as awarded them $0 for future pecuniary loss, and the defendant cross-appeals from the order dated March 18, 2004.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiffs’ contention that the verdict as to damages was inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review because they failed to object to the verdict on that ground prior to the discharge of the jury *(see Barry v Manglass,*55 NY2d 803, 806 [1981]; *Sukhoo v City of New York,*1 AD3d 349 [2003]; *Delacruz v Galaxy Elecs.,*300 AD2d 278 [2002]).

Under the particular facts of this case, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,086
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,416
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,971
<PP&E>                                         316,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                (102,860)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,913
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           405
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,904
<SALES>                                         14,780
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,780
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (631)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30,003)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30,003)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30,003)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.79)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02361-RPM

NICOLE WITTER-GORTNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOTEL POWERS, INC. d/b/a HAMPTON INN, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on November 2, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on October 27, 2011.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: September 30th, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02361-REB-KMT Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### ROTH CO., Inc., v. ST. CHARLES TIRE CO., Inc.*

No. 16374.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 8, 1937.

Racivitch & Hickerson, of New Orleans, for appellant.

John E. Jackson and Baldwin J. Allen, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Certiorari denied April *26, 1227,*

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for defendant-appellee, on application for rehearing, claim that we are in error in stating, in our opinion, that at the time the premises of plaintiff were rented to Schmidt under the original lease, there was already in existence an agreement on the part of plaintiff to rent the adjoining premises to the Standard Oil Company, whereas the fact is that the lease granted to the Standard Oil Company was executed on Mar-ch 25, or one day after the lease was made with Schmidt. Counsel misconstrue the wording of the opinion. We did not say that, at the time the property was rented to Schmidt, the lease with' the Standard Oil Company had been executed, but we did find that at that time there was in existence an agreement to rent the adjoining premises to the Standard Oil Company. This fact is evidenced by a clause inserted in the Schmidt lease, which reads:

“The lessee is aware of and has full detailed knowledge of the arrangements with, and leasing of the space in front of the above premis'es together with a portion of the front office to the Standard Oil Company of La. for the purpose of conducting a gasoline, oil and Service *839Station and other business incidental thereto, and agrees to cooperate with them in a harmonious use of the entire property.”

The rehearing applied for is refused.

Rehearing refused.