alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp.
Naperville, Illinois

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary as of May 3, 2003 (Successor
Company), and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations and
cash flows for the three-month period ended May 3, 2003 (Successor Company), the
one-month period ended May 4, 2002 (Successor Company), and the two-month period
ended April 6, 2002 (Predecessor Company). These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and of making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to such condensed consolidated financial statements for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet of
Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary as of February 1, 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the ten months ended February 1, 2003 and the two-month period ended
April 6, 2002 (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 5, 2003, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of February 1, 2003 is fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it
has been derived.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
June 6, 2003

                                       29
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 24, 2010

1117 

# Order

November 24, 2010

141218 & (20)(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141218 COA: 296018 Wayne CC: 02-010195-FC TYSON DAVID O’NEAL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 19, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this cas e to the Wayne Circuit Court. The trial court’s January 21, 2009 Opinion and Order states that the defendant’s judgment of sentence incorrectly showed th e defendant as a fourth felo ny offender, when it should have designated him a second felony offende r, and noted that a co rrected judgment of sentence would be sent to the Department of Corrections. The copy of the judgment of

sentence in the record does no t reflect that the amendment or correction has been made. On remand, the circuit court shall assure that an amended judgment of sentence is prepared and transmitted to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persua ded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions to remand and for appoin tment of counsel are

DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THOMAS HEARREAN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00338-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 5

of Denton County, Texas 

(TC# F-2012-1033-E)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s Motion to Transfer Exhibit to the Court of Appeals.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS the Official Court Reporter for the County Criminal Court 

No. 5 of Denton County, Texas, to electronically submit a supplemental reporter’s record with 

State’s Exhibit 1 which is an audio/video recording. The supplemental reporter’s record is due 

with this Court on or before July 25, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending September 11, 2021

----

Personnel            Division of Supervision and Regulation -- appointment of Marta Chaffee as senior associate director.            -Announced, September 9, 2021            Enforcement            BNP Paribas, New York, New York -- issuance of a consent order of prohibition and an order of assessment of a civil money penalty against Bhushan Bhangale, a former institution-affiliated party of BNP Paribas.            -Announced, September 9, 2021            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
Order entered November 4, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00432-CV

DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS, Appellant

V.

PAUL GREEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09857

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s October 30, 2014 unopposed second motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief. Appellant shall file its brief by November 13, 2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial  statements of Amscan Holdings,  Inc. as of March 31, 1998 and for the
three  months then ended and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to such
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001024729
<NAME>                        AMSCAN HOLDINGS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                         15,140
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  56,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,353)
<INVENTORY>                                    46,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              123,507
<PP&E>                                         70,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                (31,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                176,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,107
<BONDS>                                       233,620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (92,898)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  176,789
<SALES>                                        55,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               55,561
<CGS>                                          35,989
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  35,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,010
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,664
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries



|                                               |  |                       
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name                                           |  | Place of Incorporation
|                                               | 
|Radyne Corporation Pte Ltd                     |  | Singapore             
|                                               | 
|Comstream Corporation                          |  | Delaware              
|                                               | 
|Armer Communications Engineering Services, Inc |  | Delaware              
|                                               | 
|Tiernan Radyne ComStream Inc.                  |  | Delaware              
|                                               | 
|Xicom Technology, Inc.                         |  | California            
|                                               | 
|Xicom Technology Europe, Ltd                   |  | United Kingdom        



60
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART,

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO RESTRICT DOCUMENT

The United States of America, by and through UnitedStates Attorney John F. Walsh

and Assistant United States Attorney Linda Kaufman, respectfully moves to restrict

Document, any order revealing the contents of that document, and the brief filed in support

of this motion, for the reasons stated in the brief filed in support of this motion. The United

States requests a “Level 3" Restriction which would make the document, any order

revealing the contents of that document and the brief filed in support of this motion,

“Viewable by Filer & Court” only. 

Respectfully submitted this 21 day of June, 2012.

st

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

By: s/ Linda Kaufman 

Linda Kaufman

Assistant United States Attorney

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0100

Facsimile: (303) 454-0404

E-mail: Linda.Kaufman@usdoj.gov

1

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 88 filed 06/21/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 21 day of June 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing st

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO RESTRICT DOCUMENT with the Clerk of the Court using

the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail

addresses:

Martin Adam Stuart 

Email: martinstuartlaw@solucian.com

William Lewis Taylor 

Email: wltaylorpc@gmail.com

Ms. Paula M. Ray

E-mail: paulamray@earthlink.net

 

By: s/ Solange Reigel 

SOLANGE REIGEL

Legal Assistant to AUSA Linda Kaufman

United States Attorney’s Office

1225 - 17 Street, Suite 700 th

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0244

Fax: (303) 454-0402

E-mail: solange.reigel@usdoj.gov

 

2

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 88 filed 06/21/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01991-REB-KMT Document 11 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01991-REB-KMT Document 11 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01991-REB-KMT Document 11 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01991-REB-KMT Document 11 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01991-REB-KMT Document 11 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 7 -00 704 -CV

Rhe tt We bst e r P e as e , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Attor ney Ge neral , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF LEE COUNTY , 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 12,3 80 , HO NORAB LE TERRY L. F LENNIK EN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant Rhett Webster P ea s e has filed a notice of a

ppeal f rom an “ Orde r for I ssu anc e of

Ca pia s” iss ue d b y

the tr ia l cou rt on J uly

27 , 2 00 7. Ap pe lla

nt’ s n oti c e of

a pp e a l is untimely beca use it was filed more than thirty day s after

the order appea led from wa s signe d by the trial court. SeeTex. R. App. P . 26.1. In addition, appellant appe als from a n interlocutory

order , not
a fi na l ju dg me nt.

Th is C ourt

la c ks jur isd ic tio n o ve r a n a pp e a l f ro m an inte rl oc uto ry

or de r unl e ss j urisdiction is specifica lly provided by

statute. Se eSta ry

v . D e Bo rd, 9 6 7 S. W. 2 d 3 52, 352-53 (T e x. 19 98 ); Jack

B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 8 42 S.W. 2d 26 6, 27 2 (Tex
. 19 92). No statut e authorizes an interlocutory appea l f rom an order for issuanc e of c apias. See Te x. Civ . Pra c . & Re m. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2007) (prov i d i ngfor a ppeal f rom ce rtain interlocutor

y order s). Acc ording ly , we dismiss this appeal for w ant of jurisdiction.2 __________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

8, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted via conference call. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel (TAP) will be held Wednesday, November 5, 2008, at 2 p.m. Eastern 
Time via a conference call. If you would like to have the Joint 
Committee of TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-
1227 or (414) 231-2360, or write Patricia Robb, TAP Office, MS-1006-
MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or FAX to 
(414) 231-2363, or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. For 
information to join the Joint Committee meeting, contact Patricia Robb 
at the above number.
    The agenda will include the following: discussion of issues and 
responses brought to the Joint Committee, office report, and discussion 
of annual meeting.

    Dated: September 26, 2008.
Roy L. Block,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E8-23634 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          18,748
<SECURITIES>                                    43,644
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,011)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               215,056
<PP&E>                                          20,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 359,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,460
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           513
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   359,038
<SALES>                                        288,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,576
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  297,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,711
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,281
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,430
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,303)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,127
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
#### Edward Hyslop, Respondent, v Mobil Oil Corporation, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Edward Hyslop, Respondent, v PetrAll Petroleum Corporation, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

[744 NYS2d 749]

Appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Murphy, J.), entered October 29, 2001, which, inter alia, granted that part of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fifth affirmative defense of defendant Petr-All Petroleum Corporation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced these consolidated actions to recover damages for injuries that he sustained as the result of an electric shock experienced in the course of his work. The work involved replacement of defective bulbs, ballasts and sockets in a freestanding, illuminated “Mobil” sign on the premises of a gasoline station of which defendants were the lessor and lessee, respectively. Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fifth affirmative defense of defendant PetrAll Petroleum Corporation alleging the failure to state a cause of action under the Labor Law, and properly denied those parts of defendants’ motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. Contrary to the contention of defendants, they failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff was injured while performing “routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context” *(Bieber v A&B Wholesale,*291 AD2d 936, 936 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see generally Scott v Scott’s Landing,*277 AD2d 918, 919, *lv denied*96 NY2d 705) and thus failed to meet their burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected under Labor Law § 241 (6) *(see Ruiz v 8600 Roll Rd.,*190 AD2d 1030, 1031; *see generally Joblon v Solow,*91 NY2d 457, 465-466; *Jock v Fien,*80 NY2d 965, 968; 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [13]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hayes, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02389-WYD-MJW

JOHN STAUFFER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

KAREN E. HAYES, D.O.;

A WOMAN’S PLACE OF FORT COLLINS, P.L.L.P.;

PETER DUSBABEK;

TODD VRIESMAN;

MONTGOMERY, KOLODNY, AMATUZIO & DUSBABEK, L.L.P.;

J. BRADFORD MARCH III; and

MARCH, OLIVE & PHARRIS, L.L.P.,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Pro Se Plaintiff Stauffer’s Motion in Limine for : 1)

[sic] Right to be Represented by the Attorney of His Choice, and, Void Receiver Order,

No Personal Jurisdiction, Due Process Violation Determination (docket no. 51) is

DENIED for the following reasons. 

I find that the Pro Se Plaintiff Stauffer did not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 

Pro Se litigants must “comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of

Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Odgen v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th

Cir. 1994); Hickey v. (NFN) Van Austin et al., 1999 CJC.AR 5979 

The fact that a party is appearing pro se does not relieve that individual from the

obligation of complying with all applicable rules of the court. Colorado v. Carter, 678 F.

Supp. 1484, 1490 (D. Colo. 1986); Hall v. Doering, 997 F. Supp. 1464, 1468 (D. Kan.

1998); Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro se plaintiffs are held

to the same rules of procedure which apply to other litigants).

It is not the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for

the pro se litigant. Gibson v. City of Cripple Creek, 48 F 3d 1231, (10th Cir. 1995).

I further find that the Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is procedurally improper. 

A Motion in Limine is a “motion [request], whether made before or during trial, to

exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce

Case 1:11-cv-02389-WYD-MJW Document 66 Filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 at n. 2 (1984). In this case, the Pro Se Plaintiff

Stauffer’s Motion in Limine does not seek to exclude or otherwise address any

evidence. Instead, such Motion in Limine seeks immediate adjudication of the merits of

his claims. Moreover, Plaintiff cites no legal authority to support the relief sought in the

subject motion (docket no. 51). For these reasons, the subject motion (docket no. 51)

should be DENIED.

 

Date: March 13, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02389-WYD-MJW Document 66 Filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
J. Hardesty

Douglas months' incarceration, to run concurrently with the sentence he was serving in an unrelated case. We conclude that the district court properly ensured that Giles' designation as a Juggalo was not based upon impalpable or highly suspect evidence and did not err by declining to strike the designation from the PSI. See Gomez v. State, 130 Nev. , 324 P.3d 1226, 1228-29 (2014). 1

Second, Giles asserts that the district court violated his right to due process by declining to give him a "meaningful opportunity" to challenge the designation of the Juggalos as a criminal gang in his PSI. We decline to consider this claim because Giles does not assert that the court considered the Juggalos' alleged status as a gang when imposing sentence and merely asserts that the designation might cause him negative consequences in the future. See id. at , 324 P.3d at 1229; see generally United States v. Valentine, 783 F.2d 1413, 1417 (9th Cir. 1986) (generic and speculative claims of potential injuries are insufficient to establish a violation of due process). Accord United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325-26 (1971). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

'To the extent that Giles asks this court to modify 

### Gomez, we decline to do so.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A

### cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3