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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,829
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,043
<INVENTORY>                                    105,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               242,055
<PP&E>                                          53,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 345,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,595
<BONDS>                                        197,461
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5,034)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   345,820
<SALES>                                      1,142,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,142,860
<CGS>                                        1,056,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,931
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   783
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,044
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,567
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,351
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Cortez, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 467]

Motion by the appellant to amend the decision and order of this Court, dated April 1, 2002, which determined an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 26, 1998, in the above-entitled action, to provide that the new trial directed by this Court be preceded by a new suppression hearing.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is,

Ordered that the motion is granted, and the decision and order of this Court in the above-entitled action dated April 1, 2002 (293 AD2d 485), is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered May 26,1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered, *to be preceded by a new suppression hearing.*

“Where the evidence, the law and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed together and as of the time of representation, reveal that meaningful representation was provided, [a] defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel has been satisfied” *(People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 798-799). A defendant is not guaranteed a perfect trial, but is entitled to a fair trial. Thus, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that he or she was deprived of a fair trial by less than meaningful representation; mere disagreement with strategies or tactics will not suffice *(see People v Benn,*68 NY2d 941, 942; *People v Satterfield, supra).*

The defendant correctly contends that the defense counsel’s deficient representation deprived him of a fair trial. A portion *466of the defendant’s claim is based on matter dehors the record. As to that part of his claim that is reviewable, the record demonstrates that counsel did not provide meaningful representation. Among the deficiencies in counsel’s performance were her lack of familiarity with the rules of evidence, her failure to review *Rosario*material (see *People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286, *cert denied*368 US 866), her inability to effectively cross-examine the People’s witnesses, her solicitation of inadmissible identification testimony during cross-examination of a detective and her failure to object when further testimony was elicited from the detective on redirect, and her misstatement in summation that a witness had made an in-court identification of the defendant when he had not, in fact, done so. While no single error on counsel’s part would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, the cumulative effect of these errors deprived the defendant of meaningful representation (see *People v Zaborski,*59 NY2d 863, 865; *People v Lindo,*167 AD2d 558, 559).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the defendant’s remaining contention. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01943-BNB

RODNEY RAY ZIMMERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOANN SHOEMAKER, 

CATHIE HOLST, 

MR. BURGONDO, 

DEEANN KAHLER, and 

JOSEPH WRIGHT, 

Defendants. 

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request Judicial Notice of

Inability to Exhaust (1915)" (Doc. No. 15). The request is DENIED as premature. 

Plaintiff is reminded that he has twenty (20) days from the October 21, 2011

minute order in which to file an amended complaint that complies with the August 24,

2011, order. Failure to do so within the time allowed will result in the dismissal of the

instant action. 

Dated: November 3, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01943-LTB Document 16 Filed 11/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
accompanying financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                           1,013
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                       855
<INVENTORY>                                     22,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,786
<PP&E>                                         103,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,658
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,304
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,815
<SALES>                                        164,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               164,353
<CGS>                                          149,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  149,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,640
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,169)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,333)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,333)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)


</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1147 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to terminate the administrative 

freeze on the enrollment into the health care system of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs of veterans in the lowest priority category for enrollment (referred to as ‘‘Priority 8’’). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Mrs. MURRAY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to terminate the 

administrative freeze on the enrollment into the health 

care system of the Department of Veterans Affairs of 

veterans in the lowest priority category for enrollment 

(referred to as ‘‘Priority 8’’). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honor Our Commit5 ment to Veterans Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress makes the following findings: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 1147 IS

1 (1) Over 273,000 veterans have been barred 

2 from receiving health care provided by the Depart3 ment of Veterans Affairs as a result of a freeze on 

4 the enrollment of veterans who are in the lowest pri5 ority category for enrollment (referred to as ‘‘Pri6 ority 8’’). 

7 (2) Veterans with incomes as low as $26,902 

8 have been barred from receiving health care from 

9 the Department of Veterans Affairs by reason of the 

10 freeze. 

11 (3) Hundreds of thousands of veterans are re12 turning home, or will return home, from Afghani13 stan and Iraq and may be denied needed long-term 

14 benefits due to the freeze. 

15 (4) The average veteran whose benefits are fro16 zen is 62.8 years old and is entering a time in life 

17 when health benefits are needed most. 

18 SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FREEZE ON EN19 ROLLMENT IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OF THE 

20 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

21 Section 1705 of title 38, United States Code, is 

22 amended by adding at the end the following new sub23 section: 

24 ‘‘(d) The Secretary shall administer the health care 

25 enrollment system under this section so as to enroll any 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•S 1147 IS

1 veteran who is eligible under this section for such enroll2 ment and who applies for such enrollment.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
176 La. 811

#### Zach T. MILLER v. Marguerite Blevins MILLER.

No. 31216.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1933.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 1933.

S. R. Holstein, of Winnsboro, for appellant.

Max M. Schaumburger, of New Orleans, for appellee.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a proceeding for a divorce on the ground of adultery. The defense is a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, resting on the ground that the matrimonial domicile of the parties is not in the state of Louisiana, but in the state of Oklahoma, where both parties reside, a denial of the adultery, and aver-ments of adultery on the part .of plaintiff. There was judgment below overruling the exception to the jurisdiction, and granting plaintiff the divorce, and the permanent custody of the minor issue of the marriage.

Plaintiff alone has filed a brief. The evidence adduced leaves no doubt that plaintiff, who was interested in the show, known as the Miller Bros. 101 Ranch, soon after his marriage with defendant, located in Catahou-la parish with the intention of residing there permanently, that parish becoming the matrimonial domicile. It has remained the matrimonial domicile ever since. The exception to the jurisdiction was overruled properly.

On the merits of the case, the evidence fully establishes the adultery charged by plain*894tiff. Defendant offered no evidence on the trial of the merits. Therefore, -there is no evidence to establish adultery on the part of plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.

ST. PAUL, J., absent on account of illness, takes no part.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 15 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 16 of 17
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-1 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 17 of 17
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM

STEPHEN T. HATCH, derivatively, on behalf of Zynex, Inc., formerly known as Zynex

Medical Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS SANDGAARD,

FRITZ G. ALLISON,

TAYLOR SIMONTON,

MARY BETH VITALE, and

Defendants,

ZYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation,

Nominal Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Taylor Simonton (“Simonton”) and

Mary Beth Vitale’s (“Vitale”) Renewed Motion for Order Requiring Security [Docket No.

24; Filed October 11, 2011] (the “Motion”). For the second time, see Minute Order [#21],

Defendants Simonton and Vitale have failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which

provides as follows: 

The Court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before

filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good faith efforts to

confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.

The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the

motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.

In the Motion, counsel for Defendants Simonton and Vitale states that on October 11, 2011,

he attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel by electronic mail and by telephone to ascertain

whether Plaintiff objected to the relief requested in the Motion. See Motion [#24] at 2. He

then stated that “Plaintiff’s counsel has not yet replied to those communications.” Id.

Case 1:11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM Document 29 Filed 10/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

Counsel for Defendants Simonton and Vitale then filed this Motion later the same day. This

does not amount to a “reasonable, good faith effort” to confer. After contacting opposing

counsel about a disputed matter, counsel for the moving party is advised to wait at least

three business days for a response before filing a motion with the Court. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#24] is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: October 17, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM Document 29 Filed 10/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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 Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Raymond F. Kunzmann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ Raymond F. Kunzmann
-----------------------
Raymond F. Kunzmann
Chief Financial Officer
November 9, 2005
1

“[#16]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02099-REB-KLM

LINDA PACE, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

YES COMMUNITIES, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice [#16]1

 filed

November 17, 2011. After reviewing the stipulation and the file, I conclude that the stipulation

should be approved and that this action should be dismissed with prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice [#16] filed November 17, 2011, is

APPROVED;

2. That any pending motion is DENIED as moot; and

3. That this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the parties to pay their own

attorney fees and costs. 

Dated November 17, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02099-REB-KLM Document 17 Filed 11/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

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 iGATE Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Phaneesh Murthy, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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/ PHANEESH
MURTHY                                 
|Phaneesh Murthy Chief Executive Officer and Director

Date: May 6, 2011
---

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Section B
Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial Banks  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|
|B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks                                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                 
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks         
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                     
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks             
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            
|
|B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                                                
|B.8. Average Loan-Deposit Ratios at Agricultural Banks in Selected Federal Reserve Districts
|ASCII (10 KB)                                                                               
|B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures                                                   
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: March 24, 2010
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-71]

# 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 08-71 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: September 25, 2008.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 58184)          ( print page 58185)          ( print page 58186)          ( print page 58187)          ( print page 58188)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

 [FR Doc. E8-23351 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 119 Filed 09/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1