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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                            60,230
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     25,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       183,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  273,214
<PP&E>                                            76,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    363,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             120,360
<BONDS>                                           135,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          122
<OTHER-SE>                                        85,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      363,493
<SALES>                                           548,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  548,544
<CGS>                                             442,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     442,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (4,793)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (4,793)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (4,793)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.39)
        

</TABLE>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 19, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.119 State and Local Government Employee Retirement Funds** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. Dollars 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                           4,611
<SECURITIES>                                     5,724
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                       292
<INVENTORY>                                      8,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,272
<PP&E>                                          10,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,096
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,532
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,672
<SALES>                                         36,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,813
<CGS>                                           21,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (22)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (457)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,096
<INCOME-TAX>                                       329
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                767
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       767
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02697–REB–KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MOUNTAIN STATES LINE CONSTRUCTORS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING

COMMITTEE, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Join Does 1-40, MYR/Sturgeon Electric, William Long, William

Fredricks” (Doc. No. 8, filed Nov. 14, 2011) is DENIED without prejudice. It appears that

Plaintiff seeks to amend her Title VII Complaint (Doc. No. 1) to add additional defendants. As

such, Plaintiff may instead file an appropriate motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The

motion shall detail the proposed amendments and the reasons why such amendments are

necessary. Additionally, Plaintiff must attach the proposed amended complaint to the motion. 

The proposed amended complaint must contain all of Plaintiff’s claims and all of the defendants

against whom she wishes to assert claims. 

Dated: November 15, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 10 Filed 11/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60533 Summary Calendar
LEANGSE HOEUNG; TIP VANNY EM Petitioners

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A95 261 171 BIA No. A95 261 172
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leangse Hoeung, and his wife, Tip Vanny Em, citizens and natives of Cambodia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) dismissal oftheir appeal ofthe order ofthe immigration judge (IJ) denying their applicationsfor asylum, withholding ofremoval, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Where, as here, the BIA has adopted the analysis and United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60533

2 conclusions of the IJ, we review the IJ’s findings. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). Hoeung challenges the IJ's denial of relief based on the IJ's finding that Hoeung's testimony was not credible. He contends that his testimony did not contradict his written asylum application and materials; he asserts that his testimony simply clarified and elaborated on certain details. He asserts that the IJ misread and misinterpreted the facts, statements, and testimony and that the inconsistencies identified by the IJ are trivial, innocent oversights that do not go to the heart of his case. A review of the record establishes that the I J’s finding that Hoeung’s testimony is not credible is substantially supported by the record. Hoeung’s arguments do not compel this court to substitute itsjudgment for that of the IJ. See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (“We cannot substitute our judgment for that ofthe BIA or IJ with respect to the credibility ofthe witnesses
or ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations.”); see also Efe , 293 F.3d at 905 (“The panel cannot replace the Board or IJ’s determinations concerning witness credibility or ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations with its own determinations.”). Further, Hoeung has not challenged the alternative conclusions that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims for asylum, for withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Agai nst Torture. Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge to these conclusions. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not raised in alien’s brief in support of his petition for review of decision of BIA are deemed abandoned). The petition is DENIED.
Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 114 Filed 01/14/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            For the Three Months             For the Nine Months
                                               Ended Sept. 30                   Ended Sept. 30
                                          ------------------------         ------------------------
                                             1999         1998                1999         1998
                                          -----------  -----------         -----------  -----------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>                 <C>          <C>
Net Earnings                              $ 3,279,000  $ 3,204,000         $ 9,750,000  $11,520,000
                                          ===========  ===========         ===========  ===========
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                              15,005,000   15,005,000          15,005,000   15,005,000
                                          ===========  ===========         ===========  ===========
Basic and diluted earnings per share
  of common stock                         $       .22  $       .21         $       .65  $       .77
                                          ===========  ===========         ===========  ===========
 </TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

Certification by Chief Financial Officer of Amendment No. 1 on Form 10K/A

I, Steven Spooner, Chief Financial Officer of Mitel Networks Corporation (Mitel), 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 Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Mitel, for the year ended
December 31, 2014 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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

Dated: April 1, 2015



/s/ Steven E. SpoonerName: Steven E. Spooner Title: Chief Financial
Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6532
WALTER LEE WRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-333-8-AW) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Walter Lee Wright appeals the order of the district court denying relief on his claim filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Wright’s claim before the district court sought to challenge the judgment of a Maryland state court denying relief on an earlier civil rights complaint filed by Wright in that court. The writ of habeas corpus is available for those alleging they are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” § 2254(a). Moreover, the district court does not have jurisdiction over the judgments of state courts. SeeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (noting exclusive jurisdiction over state court action is in the Supreme Court of the United States). Accordingly, because the relief sought by Wright was unavailable under § 2254, and because the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim, we find no error in the district court’s order of dismissal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02765-PAB-BNB

DALIP BASANTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY METCALF, M.D.,

JASON ROZESKI, M.D.,

PLATTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, and

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to Preclude Disclosure of Subsequent Expert

Witness Report Due to Inadvertent Disclosure [Doc. # 126, filed 4/2/2013] (the “Motion In

Limine”);

(2) Defendant United States’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Deposition Time Limit

[Doc. # 131, filed 4/9/2013] (the “Motion re Huffman Deposition”);

(3) Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Quash, Motion for Protective Order and

Motion for Immediate Hearing [Doc. # 135, filed 4/9/2013] (the “Motion to Quash”); and

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce F.R.C.P. 30(d)(1) and Request for Expedited

Briefing [Doc. # 137, filed 4/10/2013] (the “Motion re Scope of Expert Testimony”).

I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record, which are

incorporated here.

Case 1:11-cv-02765-PAB-NYW Document 156 Filed 05/01/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion In Limine [Doc. # 126] is DENIED;

(2) The Motion re Huffman Deposition [Doc. # 131] is GRANTED. The defendants

may reopen the deposition of Dr. Laurence Huffman for an additional 3.5 hours of examination. 

The deposition shall occur in person, and not by video conference, at a date, time, and place as

the parties may agree provided the deposition is completed not later than June 10, 2013;

(3) The Motion to Quash is GRANTED. Although I find that the contract in question

is relevant to matters in dispute of is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence, the United States failed to comply with the requirements of Butler v. Biocare Med.

Tech., Inc., 348 F.3d 1163, 1173 (10th Cir. 2003), concerning giving notice of the subpoena. 

The United States may obtain the contract pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum upon proper

notice and service; 

(4) The Motion re Scope of Expert Testimony [Doc. # 137] is DENIED; and

(5) At the parties’ request and on a showing of good cause, the discovery cut-off is

extended to and including July 2, 2013, for the completion of depositions only. 

Dated May 1, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02765-PAB-NYW Document 156 Filed 05/01/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH

CHERYL ARABALO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DENVER, COUNTY OF DENVER, through its elected officials, the Denver City

Council;

ASHLEY KILROY, in his official capacity as Acting Safety Manager for the City and County of

Denver; and

CAPTAIN GUTIERREZ,

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.
DATED this 22nd day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
Case 1:11-cv-02679-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02679-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02679-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02679-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-DME-MEH Document 3 filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-DME-MEH Document 3 filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIAM J. SWIFT,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-7035

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 11-1750, Judge William A. Moorman.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Carpenter, Chartered, of 

Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant. 

TARA K. HOGAN, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. On the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, and JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director. Of counsel on the brief were MICHAEL J.

TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and 
 

MEGHAN D. ALPHONSO, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 January 9, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-58632 and 333-42546) of Lifeline Systems, Inc.
of our report dated February 11, 2002, except as to the 19th paragraph of Note E
and Note M for which the date is March 27, 2002, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2002


                                      -55-
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 40756 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Daniel Colado -**  **Garcia,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:22 - CR - 963 - 1

**________________ ______________**  Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Colado Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Colado - Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 15, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40756 Document: 00516788518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2023No. 22 - 40756

2 therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from furth er responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2 . Case: 22-40756 Document: 00516788518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02752-BNB

(The above civil action number must appear on all future papers

 sent to the court in this action. Failure to include this number

 may result in a delay in the consideration of your claims.) 

LINAYA HAHN,

Plaintiff,

v.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for BAFC 2007-1,

CASTLE STAWIARSKI, LLC, and

RICHARD GEBHARD, BOULDER COUNTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE,

Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CURE DEFICIENCY

Plaintiff has submitted a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a “Complaint to Stop Eviction and to Nullify Foreclosure Sale.” 

As part of the court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1, the court has

determined that the submitted documents are deficient as described in this order. 

Plaintiff will be directed to cure the following if she wishes to pursue her claims. Any

papers that the Plaintiff files in response to this order must include the civil action

number on this order. 

Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

(1) is not submitted

(2) is not on proper form (must use the court’s current form) 

(3) is missing original signature by Plaintiff

(4) is missing affidavit

(5) affidavit is incomplete

Case 1:11-cv-02752-LTB Document 3 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

(6) affidavit is not notarized or is not properly notarized

(7) names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, petition or

application

(8) other 

Complaint or Petition:

(9) is not submitted

(10) X is not on proper form (must use the court’s current form) 

(11) is missing an original signature by the Plaintiff

(12) is incomplete

(13) uses et al. instead of listing all parties in caption

(14) names in caption do not match names in text

(15) __ addresses must be provided for all defendants/respondents in “Section A.

Parties” of complaint, petition or habeas application

(16) other 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Plaintiff cure the deficiencies designated above within thirty

(30) days from the date of this order. Any papers which the Plaintiff files in response

to this order must include the civil action number on this order. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall obtain the court-approved Complaint

form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, if the Plaintiff fails to cure the designated deficiencies

within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the complaint and the action will

be dismissed without further notice. The dismissal shall be without prejudice.

DATED November 1, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02752-LTB Document 3 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2