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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         996,000
<SECURITIES>                                22,777,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,849,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,736,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,396,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,307,000
<PP&E>                                       2,865,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,877,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,106,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,731,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,106,000
<SALES>                                     28,518,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,518,000
<CGS>                                       19,849,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,849,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,982,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,993,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   796,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,197,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,197,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 2000 QUARTERLY REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,714
<SECURITIES>                                     9,265
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                       340
<INVENTORY>                                      4,395
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,719
<PP&E>                                         200,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                  96,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,425
<BONDS>                                         45,380
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,350
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,150
<SALES>                                          2,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,209
<CGS>                                            1,549
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,032
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,870
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,870
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02565-WJM-BNB

SIGNE MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay All Deadlines and

Vacate All Hearings Pending the Court’s Decision on Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [docket no. 60, filed February 15, 2013] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. The Pretrial Conference will remain set

as previously scheduled for March 12, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., with the proposed Pretrial Order due

March 5, 2013.

DATED: February 19, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02565-WJM-BNB Document 63 Filed 02/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-80-14)

Submitted: April 23, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Haywood Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Alvin Jackson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his

motions to correct the record and for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Williams, No. CR-80-14 (E.D. Va.

Dec. 15, 1995 & Jan. 9, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for  the  year  ended December  31, 2001 for  Dyco Oil and Gas Program
1983-1 Limited Partnership.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
March 8, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1783

EUNICE ARHIN, a/k/a Eunice Akua Ahrin,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. 

Submitted: April 11, 2011 Decided: April 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Jay S. Marks, MARKS, CALDERON, DERWIN & RACINE, PLC, Arlington, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, 

David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Liza S. Murcia, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eunice Arhin, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(Board) denying her motion to reconsider. We review the denial 

of motions to reconsider for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a) (2010); Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th 

Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). 

To succeed on a motion to reconsider, the movant must specify an

error of fact or law in the Board’s prior decision. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2010).

We have reviewed the administrative record and Arhin’s 

contentions and conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we 

deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by 

the Board. See In re: Arhin (B.I.A. June 17, 2010). To the 

extent that Arhin challenges the Board’s orders of July 15, 

2008, and February 11, 2009, we note that she failed to file 

timely petitions for review of those orders. We therefore 

dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those 

claims. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
# Child Health Day, 2008

Americans have a duty to promote the health and safety of our children.  On Child Health Day, we affirm that all children are a precious gift, and we underscore our commitment to helping them realize their full potential.

Families are the foundation of our society, and parents play the vital role of providing stability, guidance, and discipline so children can lead healthy lives.  Teachers, caregivers, and mentors can also help teach children about the importance of making good choices.  All Americans can help our Nation's youth become healthy and responsible adults by encouraging them to avoid risky behaviors such as early sexual activity, drugs, alcohol, and violence.

My Administration remains dedicated to helping younger generations achieve their dreams by supporting programs that encourage children to maintain healthy and active lifestyles.  The Helping America's Youth initiative, led by First Lady Laura Bush, is helping children make smart decisions so they can confront challenges and live longer and better lives.  The HealthierUS initiative encourages positive habits and addresses public health issues facing our Nation's youth, such as childhood obesity.  Through the President's Challenge, we are promoting personal fitness and encouraging youth to stay active beyond the school gym.  Through these and other efforts, we can make our country stronger by teaching children the importance of healthy choices.

The Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 18, 1928, as amended (36 U.S.C. 105), has called for the designation of the first Monday in October as “Child Health Day” and has requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this day.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Monday, October 6, 2008, as Child Health Day.  I call upon families, schools, child health professionals, faith-based and community organizations, and State and local governments to reach out to our Nation's young people, encourage them to avoid dangerous behavior, and help them make the right choices to achieve their dreams.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E8-23948

Billing code 3195-W9-P
#### Meadville City, Appellant, *v.*Allegheny College.

Argued April 14, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and Rhodes, JJ.

*Dickson Andrews,*City Solicitor, for appellant.

*Frank D, Prather,*of *Peters & Prather,*for appellee.

*344June 29, 1938:

Per Curiam,

This appeal raises the question whether a dwelling house purchased by Allegheny College as a residence for its president and occupied by him and his family, rent free, as an agreed part of the president’s official compensation, is exempt from local taxation, when such residence is located off the main college grounds. The evidence in the case established that the residence off the grounds was purchased following, and because of, the conversion of the President’s House, located on the campus grounds, into a dormitory for students.

The court below ruled that it was exempt.

The ruling is sustained by the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this court :

(1) That the college-owned residence of the president is exempt as property necessary for the occupancy and enjoyment of the college, by *County of Northampton v. Lafayette College,*128 Pa. 132, 18 A. 516; *Dickinson College v. Cumberland County,*12 Pa. C. C. R. 582, cited with approval by the present Chief Justice in *Barnes Foundation v. Keely,*314 Pa. 112, 122, 171 A. 267; *White v. Smith,*189 Pa. 222, 232, 42 A. 125.

(2) That the exemption applies even though the building is not annexed or contiguous to the campus or college grounds, by *Barnes Foundation v. Keely,*314 Pa. 112, 171 A. 267; *National Farm School v. Commissioners of Bucks County,*87 Pa. Superior Ct. 231; *Dickinson College v. Cumberland County,*supra, cited on page 122 of *Barnes Foundation v. Keely,*supra.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOC.F.R SECTION 240.13a-14(a)**

**(SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**

 

I, Steven D. Merrifield, Chief Executive Officer of Ciprico Inc. (“theCompany”), certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-KSB of Ciprico Inc.;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The Company’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the Company, is made known tous by others within the Company, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The Company’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors:

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated:  December 26, 2007 | Signature: | /s/  Steven D. Merrifield                  |   |
|--------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           |       |    Steven  D. Merrifield    |
|                           |       |    Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 21, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 21, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0213. KENDAL MEGAN DOMENICONE v. MICHAEL SCOTT DOMENICONE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2014CV254205
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neil Belgenio, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered December 16, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a *866hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the fact that defendant was fully advised of his *Miranda*rights prior to giving his statements to the police, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress his statements. We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that the waiver of his *Miranda*rights was involuntary because it was allegedly a result of deceptive assurances by a police officer. The police officer’s statement that "maybe perhaps we can help you” cannot be construed as a direct or an implied promise of leniency *(see, People v Weisbrot,*124 AD2d 762; *People v Rykaczewski,*121 AD2d 409, 410; *People v Perry,*77 AD2d 269; *see also, People v Sumeriski,*119 AD2d 999). Nor was there any evidence to show that the defendant was so intoxicated that he was unable to comprehend the meaning and nature of his statements *(see, People v Williams,*147 AD2d 515, 516; *People v Provosty,*141 AD2d 867).

The defendant also argues that his statements should have been suppressed on the ground that they were taken in violation of his right to counsel. However, the fact that the defendant was represented by counsel on a prior unrelated charge did not preclude him from effectively waiving his *Miranda*rights in the absence of counsel *(see, People v Bing,*76 NY2d 331, *overruling People v Bartolomeo*53 NY2d 225). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY WRIGHT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 68 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Harry Waitzman, an Attorney, Resignor.

Second Department,

February 19,1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Irving Anolik*for resignor.

*Gary L. Casella (Gary Egerman*of counsel), for the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Harry Waitzman has submitted an affidavit dated June 29, 1990, wherein he tenders his resignation as an attorney and counselor-at-law (22 NYCRR 691.9). Mr. Waitzman was admitted to the practice of law by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department, on June 23, 1954.

*725Mr. Waitzman acknowledges that he is currently the subject of an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District concerning allegations, *inter alia,*that between July 1984 and March 1989, the respondent’s bank records revealed that the balance in said account fell below the amount he was required to be holding in escrow and that for approximately four years the respondent converted these funds to his own use.

Mr. Waitzman acknowledges that he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against charges predicated upon the misconduct outlined in his affidavit of resignation, that his resignation is freely and voluntarily tendered, that he is not being subjected to coercion or duress, and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation.

Under the circumstances herein, the resignation of Harry Waitzman as a member of the Bar is accepted and directed to be filed. Accordingly, Harry Waitzman is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Brown, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the resignation of Harry Waitzman is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Harry Waitzman is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that Harry Waitzman shall promptly comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, Harry Waitzman is commanded to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
Exhibit 13

Certification of Periodic Financial Report
Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of Sodexho Alliance, SA on Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2006, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code.

Michel Landel and Siân Herbert-Jones each certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

| | 1.                         | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and                                                           
| | -------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2.                         | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sodexho Alliance, SA.
| |                            |                                                                                                                                                              
| | Date: January 12,
    2007

By:
      /s/
            Michel LandelName:
      Michel
      LandelTitle:
      Chief
      Executive OfficerBy:
      /s/
          Siân
      Herbert-JonesName:
      Siân Herbert-JonesTitle:
      Chief Financial
            Officer


---