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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Institutional Properties/2 1997 Year-End 10-K and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such 10-K filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000719184
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES/
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,906
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,755
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,275
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.83<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INKTOMI
CORPORATION FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX-MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             101,170
<SECURITIES>                                       168,158
<RECEIVABLES>                                       35,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (1,630)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   309,404
<PP&E>                                              86,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (21,263)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     555,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               66,170
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               110
<OTHER-SE>                                         482,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       555,189
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    83,396
<CGS>                                               12,776
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       96,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (7,555)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (5,404)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (5,404)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (5,404)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.05)



</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00405-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 415th District Court

Parker County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV17-0924

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

IN THE INTEREST OF R.W., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Appellant L.A.W. and Appellee L.M.W. were named R.W.’s joint 

managing conservators in their 2018 divorce decree. Two years later, L.A.W. filed a 

petition to modify the parent–child relationship, and L.M.W. filed a counterpetition.

The trial court has entered temporary orders in the modification suit but has not yet 

held a final trial. L.A.W. admits in her reply brief that “[a] final hearing has not been 

held in the suit to modify the parent–child relationship.” She states that she is seeking

an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s temporary orders.1

Such temporary orders are not subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Fam. 

Code Ann. § 105.001(e); In re J.W.L., 291 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2009, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (“Generally, Texas appellate courts only have 

appellate jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments unless a statute specifically 

allows a particular type of interlocutory appeal.”); see also In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 

335 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); In re Berryman, 629 S.W.3d 453, 457 (Tex. App.—

Tyler 2020, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

1

Although we usually give an appellant ten days to explain how we have

jurisdiction over an appeal when it appears that she is attempting to bring an 

impermissible interlocutory appeal, we do not think further explanation is necessary

here because L.A.W. has specifically stated that she is attempting to bring an 

interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s temporary orders.
3

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Delivered: November 4, 2021
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01732-WYD-BNB

MITCHELL PINSLY, derivatively on behalf of

JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN L. SCHEID,

RICHARD M. WEIL,

TIMOTHY K. ARMOUR,

PAUL F. BALSER,

ANDREW COX,

JEFFREYDIERMEIER,

J. RICHARD FREDERICKS,

DEBORAH GATZEK, 

LAWRENCE KOCHARD,

ROBERT T. PARRY,

JOCK PATTON,

GLENN SCHAFER,

GREGORY A. FROST,

JONATHAN D. COLEMAN,

R. GOBSON SMITH, and

JAMES P. GOFF,

Defendants, 

and

JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC., 

Nominal Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the Joint Motion: (1) For Extension of Time to Respond to

Complaint; (2) To Reschedule the September 28, 2011 Scheduling Conference; and (3) To

Case 1:11-cv-01732-WYD-BNB Document 24 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Set Briefing Schedule [Doc. # 22, filed 8/25/2011] (the “Motion”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion [Doc. # 22] is GRANTED;

(2) The defendants may have to and including October 7, 2011, to respond to the

Complaint;

(3) In the event any defendant files a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff shall respond to

any motion to dismiss on or before November 21, 2011; and any moving party shall reply on or

before December 21, 2011; and

(4) The scheduling conference set for September 28, 2011, is VACATED and

RESET to December 7, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.

Dated August 26, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01732-WYD-BNB Document 24 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Label			Description
Date			Quarterly observation date, end of period.
AL			Alabama 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
CO			Colorado 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
FL			Florida 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
IL			Illinois 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
KY			Kentucky 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
MD			Maryland 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
MA			Massachusetts 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
MI			Michigan 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
MS			Mississippi 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
NV			Nevada 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
NM			New Mexico 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
OH			Ohio 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
PA			Pennsylvania 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
SC			South Carolina 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
TN			Tennessee 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
TX			Texas 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
VA			Virginia 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
WA			Washington 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
WV			West Virginia 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
Private_Colleges	Private Colleges' 529 Prepaid Plan Assets. Millions of dollars.
Z1_Prepaid		Total 529 Prepaid Plan Assets from the Financial Accounts of the United States. Millions of dollars.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7080
FRANCISCO BRYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBESON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; JERRY MOODY, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-953-5-CT-H) Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francisco Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. R. Anthony Hartsoe, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bryan v. Robeson County Detention Ctr. , No. CA-94-953-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. July 24, 1997). The Appellees’ motion to strike Appellant's brief is denied.We dispensewith 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.

AFFIRMED
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58169 

[FR Doc. E8–23344 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–36] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(l) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCAIDBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–36 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
58170 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.084</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58171 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.085</GPH>
58172 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.086</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58173 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.087</GPH>
58174 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–23345 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–62] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–62 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending May 26, 2007FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFIRST BANK                                                                                                              * BranchFirst Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, to establish a branch facility to be located at 2314 Proctor Valley Road, Chula Vista, California.Newspaper: 06/02/2007Federal Register: Not applicableFIRST STATE BANK                                                                                                        * BranchFirst State Bank, Conway, Arkansas, to establish a mobile branch to be operated in White County, Arkansas.Newspaper: 06/08/2007Federal Register: Not applicable
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

April 28, 2021

a0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2021

162334

DONNA CONFORTI, Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF JOHN CONFORTI,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 162334

COA: 348745

Macomb CC: 2017

- 002406

- NI

STANLEY WEBSTER CORNELL and METRO

CONTROLS, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellants.

________________________________ _________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 29, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REINA RAFAELA ZET,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71844

Agency No. A073-914-645

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 2, 2011** 

Pasadena, California

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Reina Rafaela Zet, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying her motion to reopen

proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the

denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321

FILED

MAY 04 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Zet’s motion to reopen

because it was filed more than ninety days after the BIA’s final deportation order,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zet has not identified any exceptions to the

ninety-day time limitation that apply, see id. §1003.2(c)(3).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). 

See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “the decision

of the BIA whether to invoke its sua sponte authority is committed to its unfettered

discretion”) (emphasis omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### Angela Kallaitzakis, Respondent, v ELRAC, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[745 NYS2d 217]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant ELRAC, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated October 22, 2001, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing its counterclaim for contractual indemnification, and denied its cross motion for summary judgment limiting its liability to the plaintiff to the sum of $25,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the cross motion is granted.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident involving a vehicle she rented from the defendant ELRAC, Inc. (hereinafter *532ELRAC). ELRAC, relying on the plaintiffs contractual duty of indemnification, as set forth in the parties’ rental agreement, sought to limit its liability to the plaintiff to the sum of $25,000, the statutory minimum coverage for bodily injury required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 with respect to vehicles for hire. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied such relief. We reverse.

ELRAC demonstrated, prima facie, entitlement to the relief sought by proffering the signed rental agreement containing the subject indemnification provisions. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the duty of indemnification set forth in the rental agreement was not invalid and unenforceable because it purported to require her to indemnify ELRAC for “all” losses. Rather, the plaintiffs obligation to indemnify ELRAC is enforceable only to the extent that ELRAC’s losses exceed the statutory minimum amount of automobile accident insurance required to be carried *(see ELRAC, Inc. v Ward,*96 NY2d 58; *ELRAC, Inc. v Masara,*96 NY2d 847; *Haight v Estate of DePamphilis,*286 AD2d 369; *AIU Ins. Co. v ELRAC, Inc.,*287 AD2d 668, *lv denied*98 NY2d 604; *Bonilla v ELRAC, Inc.,*283 AD2d 382).

The plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding whether the rental agreement was subject to and in violation of CPLR 4544. The plaintiff proffered no evidence that the rented vehicle was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or that the typeface of the relevant provisions of the rental agreement was of insufficient size. To the contrary, scrutiny of the rental agreement as reproduced in the record reveals that the typeface is of sufficient size, and that the agreement was clear and legible *(see*CPLR 4544; 105 [t]). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32








Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I,  Mark D. Klok, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 of Fuelstream, Inc. fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Fuelstream, Inc.





Date:  May 13, 2011





By:  /s/ Mark D. Klok


Mark D. Klok


Chief Executive Officer


and principal financial officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00362-WYD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

1. DALE JOHNSON, 

2. DONALD BEVERLY, 

3. RONALD BENJAMIN, 

4. JIMMY HUTCHINSON, 

5. VINCENT JACKSON, 

6. JERROLD MINNEY, and 

7. SCOTT GOLDBERG, 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Government's Motion to Disclose 

Grand Jury Material pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(I). Having reviewed the 

motion and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court finds that good and 

sufficient cause supports the same. It is therefore 

ORDERED that the Government's Motion to Disclose Grand Jury Material, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(I) (ECF Doc. #29), filed November 2, 2011, is 

GRANTED. The Grand Jury testimony and Grand Jury exhibits may be disclosed to 

the Defendants and the Defendants= attorneys in the course of discovery in this case. 

It is 

Case 1:11-cr-00362-WYD Document 50 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2 

FURTHER ORDERED that such materials shall only be used in defending this 

case; that such materials shall be disclosed only to the Defendants and counsel for the 

Defendants, that the Defendants= attorneys shall maintain custody of such materials, 

and shall not reproduce or disseminate the same; and that such materials shall be 

returned to the United States at the end of the case. 

Dated: November 9, 2011. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL, 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00362-WYD Document 50 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending November 22, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE