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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          26,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,824
<PP&E>                                           2,975
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (545)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,775
<BONDS>                                         56,312
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,336
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,213
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,120
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,722
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,172)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)
        

</TABLE>
#### Hedland *v.*Lones, Judge.

(No. 24442

— Decided March 21, 1934.)

*71*Mr. Joseph N. Higley, Jr.,*and *Mr. William B. Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. H. H. Wickham,*for defendant in error.

Jones, J.

The relator himself invoked the jurisdiction of the Columbiana county court. By that action he compelled the plaintiff in the divorce suit to incur the expense necessary for the defense of her suit in a foreign instead of her home county, where she resided. In addition to this it is evident that the relator apprehended from the various interlocutory orders made by Judge Lones of the Columbiana county court that an adverse judgment would likely be rendered against him upon the merits. He had asked the court for the personal custody of the child, this was refused; he had asked that its custody be placed with the grandparents, and this was also refused. He was compelled to pay $5.00 per week for the support of the child, and lastly he was found guilty of contempt in disobeying the court’s order pertaining to the child’s custody. It is obvious that the relator should be estopped from thus trifling with the courts, and from questioning the jurisdiction of the court in the divorce proceeding. He will not be permitted to gamble upon the results of the case and change his course of action should it be apparent that these results would be unfavorable to him. In *Cleveland, C. & C. Rd. Co.*v. *Mara,*26 Ohio St., 185, Welch, J., said: “Any other rule of practice would enable parties to trifle with the court by first requiring it to hear the case upon its merits, and then, when an *72adverse decision on the merits is reached, turning round and denying its jurisdiction, thus rendering all its labors abortive and useless.” See also: *Drake et al., Trustees,*v. *Tucker,*83 Ohio St., 97, 93 N. E., 534; *Cadwell*v. *Cadwell,*93 Ohio St., 23, 112 N. E., 148; *Trumbull Savings & Loan Co.*v. *Saviers,*115 Ohio St., 403, 154 N. E., 317. In those cases the appellees had made no objection to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals until after the submission of the case. This court held that the jurisdiction of the appellate court to hear the case on appeal was waived unless the jurisdiction was seasonably challenged by a motion to dismiss the appeal before trial. The same principle should be applied to this case under the peculiar facts developed by the record. From what has been said it becomes unnecessary to decide whether or not Section 12000, General Code, authorizing change of venue in divorce cases, is constitutional.

The relator is not entitled to the extraordinary writ of prohibition and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
### The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Honorable James G. Mixon, Chief Judge, United State s 2 

### Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3076

___________ In re: Charles Evans; * Sylvia Evans * *

-------------- * * Charles Evans, Sylvia Evans, * * Appeal from the United States Appellants, * District Corut for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Worthen National Bank of Pine * Bluff, * * Creditor-Appellee, * * Walter M. Dickinson, * * Trustee-Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 11, 1997 Filed: March 20, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Charles and Sylvia Evans appeal from the district co urt’s affirmance 1 of the bankruptcy court’s decision regarding their claimed homestea d 2 exemption. Having reviewed the record and the

### -2-

parties’ briefs, we conclude that the judgment was correct, and that n o further discussion is warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01950-RBJ-CBS

TERESA GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

J. GRAYSON ROBINSON, in his personal capacity,

DAVID WALCHER, in his personal capacity, 

VINCE LINE, in his personal capacity,

TOM MCNEVIN, in his personal capacity, and

MARK CAMPBELL, in his personal capacity,

Defendants.

ORDER SETTING TRIAL AND TRIAL PREPARATION CONFERENCE

This matter has been scheduled for a five-day jury trial on the docket of Judge R.

Brooke Jackson in the U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A702, 7th Floor, 901 19th Street, 

Denver, Colorado, to commence on October 15, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. 

A Trial Preparation Conference is set for September 21, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel who 

will try the case shall attend in person. 

Seven days before the trial preparation conference, counsel and any pro se party shall 

submit proposed jury instructions and verdict forms. The jury instructions shall identify the 

source of the instruction and supporting authority, e.g. § 103, Fed. Jury Practice, O’Malley, 

Grenig, and Lee (5th ed.). The parties shall submit their instructions and verdict forms both via 

CM/ECF and by electronic mail to jackson_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov in Word format. 

Case 1:11-cv-01950-RBJ-CBS Document 24 Filed 10/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Verdict forms shall be submitted in a separate file from jury instructions. Within the jury 

instruction file, each jury instruction shall begin on a new page.

Each instruction should be numbered (e.g., “Plaintiff’s Instruction No. 1”) for purposes 

of making a record at the jury instruction conference. The parties shall attempt to stipulate to the 

jury instructions, particularly “stock” instructions and verdict forms. 

In diversity cases where Colorado law applies, please submit instructions and verdict 

forms that conform to CJI-Civ 4th.

The parties shall file via CM/ECF (1) their witness lists; and (2) their exhibit lists. Forms 

of the witness and exhibit lists are found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judges.aspx. 

Please add at least ten additional blank rows at the end of the exhibit list to accommodate any 

additional exhibits that may be introduced at trial.

To the extent the deadlines and other provisions of this order conflict with this Court’s 

Practice Standards, this order shall control.

The parties shall be prepared to address the following issues at the Trial Preparation 

Conference:

1) jury selection;

2) sequestration of witnesses;

3) timing of presentation of witnesses and evidence;

4) anticipated evidentiary issues;

5) any stipulations as to fact; and

6) any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial.

Case 1:11-cv-01950-RBJ-CBS Document 24 Filed 10/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
DATED this 26th day of October , 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01950-RBJ-CBS Document 24 Filed 10/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 11

          VIVID TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                          (Unaudited)
                               
                               
                                        Three Months Ended
                                            December 31,
                                         1997               1996

Net income                         $1,506,902          $ 804,200

Weighted average common
  stock outstanding                 9,509,248          2,222,281

 Conversion of Series B and
  Series D convertible 
  preferred stock                          --          1,096,924

 Stock issued within twelve months
  of initial public offering               --            116,159

Basic weighted average shares 
  outstanding                       9,509,248          3,435,364

Common stock equivalents              801,591          4,942,412

Diluted weighted average number of
   shares outstanding              10,310,839          8,377,776

Per share amount  (Basic)               $ .16              $ .23
Per share amount  (Diluted)             $ .15              $ .10
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: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending November 15, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02290-BNB

RICHARD CROW,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. J.A. JAMES (DRDC), and

UNKNOWN JOHN DOE MEDICAL STAFF (DRDC),

Defendants.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

After review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the court has determined that

this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the

case will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR

8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED December 7, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02290-CMA Document 12 Filed 12/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending March 17, 2007FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBOZKA INVESTMENTS, LTD.                                                                                                 * 3A1Bozka Investments, LTD., Hallettsville, Texas, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 15.63 percent of Peoples State Bank of Hallettsville, Hallettsville, Texas.  The Bozka Management Trust, Hallettsville, Texas, is the  General Partner of Bozka Investments, Ltd. and Mr. James N. Bozka, Hallettsville, Texas, is Trustee of the Bozka Management Trust.Newspaper: 03/31/2007Federal Register: 04/12/2007LEGACYTEXAS BANK                                                                                                        * BranchLegacyTexas Bank, Plano, Texas, to establish a branch to be located at 1320 S. University, Suite 314, Fort Worth, Texas 76107.Newspaper: 03/27/2007Federal Register: Not applicableUNITED BANK OF EL PASO DEL NORTE                                                                                        * BranchUnited Bank of El Paso del Norte, El Paso, Texas, to establish a branch to be located at 1726 Zaragoza, Suite C-D, El Paso, Texas 79936.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicable
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH PATRICK ROMAN SIMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JAMES E. HENNING, Facility Chaplain, 

individual and official capacity; H. 

GOMEZ, Facility Commander, individual 

and official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56789

D.C. No. 5:13-cv-02281-RGK-E

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

California pretrial detainee Joseph Patrick Roman Simon appeals pro se 

from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-56789 

remedies in his § 1983 action relating to his alleged denial of kosher meals and 

Passover observance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and 

remand.

The district court dismissed Simon’s action for failure to exhaust, finding 

that Simon failed to provide evidence that he was unaware of West Valley 

Detention Center’s grievance procedures in 2012 and 2013. However, Simon 

provided evidence that the resources available to him during this period failed to 

explain that he was required to file a second appeal with the facility manager, and 

that Simon was not otherwise made aware of a second level of appeal. This 

evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether 

administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to Simon. See Ross v. Blake, 

136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016) (“[W]hen a remedy is . . . essentially ‘unknowable’ –

so that no ordinary prisoner can make sense of what it demands – then it is also 

unavailable.”). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Simon’s motion informing the court of retaliatory conduct of jail officials, 

filed on February 19, 2016, is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 2-93416, 33-51744, 33-65239, 333-12189 and 333-62187) pertaining
to the 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan for Key Employees, the 1991 Stock Option
Plan of The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation
1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1998 Stock Option Plan of The
MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our report
dated March 18, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
April 29, 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 09-cr-33(1-3)JL

Thomas Peterson et al

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

47) filed by defendant is granted. No further continuances granted

without a hearing.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Date: May 11, 2009

cc: Mark E. Howard, Esq.

Michael J. Iacopino, Esq.

Donald A. Kennedy, Esq. 

Kenneth L. Perkes, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00033-JL Document 50 Filed 05/11/09 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:09-cr-00033-JL Document 50 Filed 05/11/09 Page 2 of 2
#### Fletcher WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954

Dismissed without opinion.
#### Carolyn Ingram, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v Julio Doe, Defendant, and Pasco Construction, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 215]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Pasco Construction appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated August 28, 2001, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it by the plaintiff Carolyn Ingram on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant by the plaintiff Carolyn Ingram on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is granted, *531and the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant by the plaintiff Carolyn Ingram is dismissed.

Upon the appellant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff Carolyn Ingram did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the burden shifted to Ingram to submit sufficient admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955; *Grossman v Wright,*268 AD2d 79). The affidavits of Ingram’s treating chiropractors failed to set forth any objective evidence to support her allegation that pre-existing injuries were exacerbated by and causally related to the subject accident *(see Napoli v Cunningham,*273 AD2d 366; *Vitale v Carson,*258 AD2d 647; *Nadrich v Woodcrest Country Club,*250 AD2d 827).

Moreover, in light of Ingram’s admission that she returned to work at two full-time jobs within two months of the accident, the conclusory allegation in her affidavit that she was forced to curtail recreational and household activities was insufficient to demonstrate that she sustained a medically determined injury or impairment which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts constituting her normal daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days following the accident *(see*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; *Lauretta v County of Suffolk,*273 AD2d 204; *DiPalma v Villa,*237 AD2d 323). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment against the plaintiff Carolyn Ingram. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7455

SPENCER LAMONT STACEY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE JOHNSON, Director; B. WATSON, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00317-sgw-mfu) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Spencer Lamont Stacey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Spencer Lamont Stacey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stacey has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

July 29, 2019

p0722 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2019

158551 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158551

COA: 343807

Saginaw CC: 74

- 000598

- FY

ROBERT THOMPSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Oc tober 10, 2018

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to hold this

case in abeyance is DENIED.