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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000766004
<NAME>                        Sbarro, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     usd

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jul-16-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         19207
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6550
<ALLOWANCES>                                   138
<INVENTORY>                                    2891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32265
<PP&E>                                         334717
<DEPRECIATION>                                 195394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          42518
<BONDS>                                        251515
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       71
<OTHER-SE>                                     95269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405227
<SALES>                                        185664
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192880
<CGS>                                          36290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  88586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             16585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1232
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5409)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6641
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6641
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 13**
**CERTIFICATION**
     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection withthe annual report of Millea Holdings, Inc. (the “Report”) for the purpose ofcomplying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code.
     Kunio Ishihara, the principal executive officer, and Yukiteru Noji, theprincipal financial officer, of Millea Holdings, Inc., each certifies that, tothe best of his knowledge:
     1.     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
     2.     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MilleaHoldings, Inc.
Date: September 29, 2003       By: /s/ KUNIO ISHIHARA        Name: Kunio Ishihara    Title: President and Director    (Principal Executive Officer)       By: /s/ YUKITERU NOJI        Name: Yukiteru Noji    Title: Senior Managing Director    (Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. LEONARD AIKEN, JR., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 498 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 21st day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
       
<S>                                       <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,854
<SECURITIES>                                       887
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,216 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,631
<PP&E>                                          29,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,817
<BONDS>                                          3,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,969
<SALES>                                          8,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,289
<CGS>                                            5,852
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    521
<INCOME-TAX>                                       186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                335
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
<FN>
<F1> note: receivables shown net of allowance of 320
        


</TABLE>
#### Charlie WAMB.LES v. STATE.

4 Div. 158.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 30, 1935.

P. B. Traweek, of Elba, for appellant.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

RICE, Judge.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HILARIO QUINTERO-RODRIGUEZ,

 a/k/a “The Big Guy,”, a/k/a “Santa Claus,”

2. ABEL SANCHEZ-LEON,

 a/k/a Joel Lopez,

 A/k/a Raul Marez-Ortiez,

3. OCTAVIO QUEZADA-PEREZ,

 a/k/a “Tavi,”

4. FLODINA BELETSO GALLEGOS,

5. GUADALUPE RUIZ-GUARDADO,

 a/k/a “Lupe,”

6. JULIO MARES-RUIZ,

 a/k/a “Mariano,”

7. LUIS JORGE MARTINEZ-VALDIVA, and

8. ROBERT MASON BYAS,

 a/k/a “Robin,”

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

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

(#424) on November 15, 2012, by Defendant Guadalupe Ruiz-Guardado. The Court construes

this Notice as a motion to change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the

parties’ plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

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

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

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

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

Administrative Order 2007-8.

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for February 13, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. and a

Sentencing hearing is set for May 20, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in the United States

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

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

3. The final trial preparation conference set for November 30, 2012, and the

December 10, 2012, trial date are VACATED as to Defendant Ruiz-Guardado.

Dated this 26th day of November, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KAREN M. DRAKE, ROBERT L. HYSLOP, JR., THERESA M. HYSLOP, JOY A. CAPKA, MARYANN DIRENZO, LEGAL ACCESS PLANS, LLC, LEGAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, THE LEGALEASE GROUP, LEGAL ACCESS PLANS, INC., LEGAL ACCESS CONSULTING, LLC D/B/A LEGAL PLANS USA, ROBERT L. HESTON, JR., PETER
PRIDE AND KAREN HENKEL,

Respondents

v.

SAMUEL W.B. MILLINGHAUSEN, III,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 380 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of December, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 8, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.224 Security Credit** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 32 Filed 11/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00376-WJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC.,

2. BRANDON RICHTER, and

3. TOR OLSON,

Defendants.

 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON ALL REMAINING 

SENTENCING-RELATED ISSUES AND MOTIONS

 

 

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted on a number of counts involving wire

fraud, violation of environmental regulations, and obstruction of justice. (ECF No. 271.)

On April 3, 2013, the Court held a full-day evidentiary hearing on the amount of loss

attributable to Defendants’ fraud for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. (ECF No. 341.) 

Individualized sentencing hearings are currently set for April 29-30, 2013. (ECF No.

316.)

The purpose of this Order is to set deadlines and briefing schedules for all

remaining motions and outstanding issues. The Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The Government’s response to Defendant’s Objections (ECF Nos. 317, 318,

319) to the Presentence Investigation Reports (ECF Nos. 307, 308, 312) shall be

filed by April 15, 2013. No replies will be permitted;

Case 1:11-cr-00376-WJM Document 344 Filed 04/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

2. The Probation Officers assigned to this case shall meet their obligations under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(g) not later than April 30, 2013; 

3. All sentencing-related motions shall be filed by April 15, 2013. Any response

thereto must be filed by April 26, 2013. No replies will be permitted; 

4. In due course after the briefing is complete, the Court will issue a written order

adjudicating the Objections to the Presentence Investigation Reports as well as

calculating the amount of loss for purposes of determining the loss-related

sentencing enhancement, if any, to be imposed by the Court pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1;

5. The sentencing hearings scheduled for April 29 and 30, 2013 are VACATED. 

Following entry of the Court’s written order on the parties’ Objections and the

amount of loss, the Court will reset the individualized sentencing hearings. At

the individualized sentencing hearings, the Court will address all motions for nonguideline sentences and any other outstanding sentencing issues. 

Dated this 5 day of April, 2013. th

BY THE COURT:

 

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00376-WJM Document 344 Filed 04/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB

THE WELLINGER FAMILY TRUST 1998;

JULIE WELLINGER, trustee, and

JULIE WELLINGER, individually,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance

company,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Supplemental Motion for In Camera 

Review of Two Privilege Log Items [Doc. # 72, filed 3/28/2013] (the “Motion”), which is

DENIED.

The plaintiffs in the Motion identify two documents contained on the defendant’s

privilege log which they contend are not subject to any applicable immunity from discovery. 

The plaintiffs’ position with respect to the documents is set out in the Motion, but I do not have

the benefit of the defendant’s position. I note, however, that the privilege log alleges that the

documents are protected from discovery on a number of bases including “Attorney-client

privilege; Work Product, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); Proprietary and Confidential business

materials in which Hartford has a competitive interest.” At least the last basis ordinarily is

insufficient to resist production altogether and, instead, may be addressed by a blanket protective

order intended to preclude public dissemination of proprietary information. Such an order is in

Case 1:11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Document 74 Filed 04/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

place in this case. Stipulated Protective Order [Doc. # 47]. 

The privilege log also resists production of the documents because “[t]his information

was obtained in order to assist with research conducted by the legal department and opinions to

be rendered to Hartford by its in-house legal department.” The explanation is unclear because it

fails to allege either that the information was communicated between a lawyer and a client for

the purpose of obtaining confidential legal advice, which ordinarily would be required to justify

the assertion of the attorney-client privilege, or that it was obtained in anticipation of litigation,

ordinarily required to establish protection under the work-product immunity.

I direct the parties to engage in a further conference on the issue. In the event they

cannot reach agreement, the plaintiffs may, if they deem it appropriate, file a motion to compel

the production of the disputed documents with supporting authority, to which the defendant will

be required to respond. The parties should bear in mind the cost shifting provisions of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a)(5) in formulating their positions.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion [Doc. # 72] is DENIED.

Dated April 2, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Document 74 Filed 04/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Case 1:11-mj-01149-KLM Document 7 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-mj-01149-KLM Document 7 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CLAYTON HOMES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          89,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  483,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,917
<INVENTORY>                                    119,434
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         267,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,045,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,498
<BONDS>                                         22,806
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,850
<OTHER-SE>                                     742,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,045,761
<SALES>                                        822,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,021,703
<CGS>                                          559,274
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  830,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (2,267)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                192,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                    73,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            119,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   119,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0444 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NICOLE LEE HUNT,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 6 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 26 2024

03/26/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0444
#### Wesley L. SISCHO, Appellant, v. A. C. ADERHOLD, Warden United States Penitentiary Annex, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee.

No. 1643.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 13, 1938.

Wesley L. Sischo, pro se.

Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.

Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed on authority of Watkins v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 85 F.2d 999 and Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306.
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Radyne Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements of Radyne Corporation on Forms S-8 (No’s. 333-23159, 333-67469, 333-90383, 333-41704 and 333-89316) and Form S-3 (No. 333-113900), of our reports dated March 1, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets ofRadyne Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2006, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006, annual report onForm 10-K of Radyne Corporation. 

As discussed in note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2006 the Company adopted theprovisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share Based Payment.*

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Phoenix, Arizona 

March 1, 2007 

 

61
#### JULIA VALENTINE, PETITIONER-DEFENDANT, v. WALTER KIDDE & CO., RESPONDENT-PROSECUTOR.

Submitted May 6, 1947

Decided November 5, 1947.

Before Case, Chief Justice, and Justice Burling.

For the respondent-prosecutor, *John*W. *Taylor.*

No appearance for the petitioner-defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Case, Chief Justice.

On August 17th, 1946, Mrs. Julia Valentine, as claimant, filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau her petition for compensation because of the *293death of her husband oil May 12th, 1946, said to have been the result of an accident which happened in the month of February, 1944. On October lOtli, 1946, the respondent moved the dismissal of the petition upon the ground that the petition was not filed within two years from the date of the accident or within two years from the date of any compensation to the petitioner’s decedent and that, therefore, the Bureau was without jurisdiction. The motion was denied without the filing of any reasons for the denial.

By *R. S.*34:15-41 it is provided that in ease of personal injury or death all claims for compensation on account thereof shall be forever barred unless the petition is filed with the secretary of the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau as prescribed by *R. S.*34:15-51. The latter section provides that every claimant “shall, unless a settlement is effected or a petition filed under the provisions of section 34 :15-50 of this title, file a petition in duplicate with the secretary of the bureau in his office, at the state house, in Trenton, within two years after the date on which the accident occurred, or in case an agreement for compensation has been made between the employer and the claimant, then within two years after the failure of the employer to make payment pursuant to the terms of such agreement; or in case a part of the compensation has been paid by the employer, then within two years after the last payment of compensation.” There is no showing or allegation of any of the exceptions named in the statute. The time period is jurisdictional. *Miller*v. *Beller Electric Supply Co.,*100 *N. J. Eq.*444; *Herbert*v. *Newark Hardware, &c., Co.,*107 *Id.*24; *affirmed,*109 *Id.*266. *Cf. Stockheimer*v. *The Carwin Co.,*135 *Id.*49. The failure to file the petition within the statutory period barred the proceeding.

The order in the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau will be reversed, with costs. The record will be remanded to the end that an order dismissing the petition be entered.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00419-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. MICHAEL ANTHONY PENN,

Defendant.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

This matter is before me on review of the file. Assistant U.S. Attorney James O.

Hearty has entered an appearance on behalf of the government in this case. Due to

the fact that I occasionally socialize with Mr. Hearty, I must recuse myself from this

case. It is therefore 

ORDERED that the judge’s file be returned to the clerk’s office for the case to be

reassigned.

DATED October 7, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00419-WJM Document 6 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1