alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          MAR-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               MAR-31-1999
[CASH]                                           2,376
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                   36,121
[ALLOWANCES]                                        22
[INVENTORY]                                      5,744
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                45,237
[PP&E]                                          16,084
[DEPRECIATION]                                   9,050
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                  98,773
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           33,211
[BONDS]                                         49,610
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                           110
[OTHER-SE]                                      14,989
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                    98,773
[SALES]                                         95,495
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                95,495
[CGS]                                           72,530
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                   72,530
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                15,810
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                               1,521
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                  5,634
[INCOME-TAX]                                     2,254
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                              3,380
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                     3,380
[EPS-BASIC]                                      .67
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .65
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02651–MSK–KMT

SAMUEL G. LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JOHN R. LIVINGSTON, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

“Plaintiff’s Amended Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint” (Doc. No.

19, filed March 15, 2012) is GRANTED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Clerk is

directed to file “Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 19-1). 

Dated: March 20, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02651-MSK-KMT Document 23 Filed 03/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### William BURBRIDGE et al., Appellants, v. Frances I. BICKETT, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Copeland & Therrel, of Miami Beach, for appellants.

J. Julien Southerland, of Miami, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60319-60320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24133]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-14888-A; AK-965-1410-KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to The Kuskokwim 
Corporation, Successor in Interest to Lower Kalskag Incorporated. The 
lands are in the vicinity of Lower Kalskag, Alaska, and are located in:

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 16 N., R. 60 W.,
    Secs. 27 to 30, inclusive.

    Containing approximately 2,254 acres.

T. 16 N., R. 61 W.,
    Secs. 25 to 29, inclusive.

    Containing approximately 3,145 acres.

T. 16 N., R. 63 W.,
     Secs. 8, 17, and 19.
    Containing approximately 1,821 acres.

T. 14 N., R. 64 W.,
    Secs. 1, 2, and 3;
    Secs. 10 to 16, inclusive.

    Containing approximately 4,949 acres.
    Aggregating approximately 12,169 acres.

    The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Calista 
Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to The Kuskokwim 
Corporation. Notice of the decision will also be published four times 
in the Tundra Drums.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until November 10, 2008 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe9f95d09c9293d09d9190889b879f909d9bbe9f95d09c9293d0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6878dc8848a8bc885898890839f87888583a6878dc8848a8bc8818990">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a

[[Page 60320]]

week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Robert Childers,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication II.
 [FR Doc. E8-24133 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02690-RBJ-KLM

DARYL SCHRAAD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DIRECT VET MARKETING, INC. a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial 

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after all responsive pleadings are filed. Each 

party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference. The conference shall be held in Courtroom 

A-702, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are 

directed to jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-4694 or by email at 

Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 

before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

DATED this 18th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02690-RBJ Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-066-CV

IN RE BRADY RANDALL HALE	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and application for telephone conference.

	The court is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  The application for telephone conference is dismissed as moot.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; MCCOY and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  March 5, 2009
816 A.2d 1046

#### JOAN FRIESEN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. E.I. DUPONT DENEMOURS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

February 4, 2003.

This Matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvidently granted;

It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed.

Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN join in this decision.
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

|   | Re: | HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------|

Series 2007-1, Class A Notes; Series 2007-1, Class B Notes

 

I, Mike A. Reeves, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of HSBC Card Services Inc. (formerly known as HSBC Private Label Corporation) (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Section 3.05 of the Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 11, 2006 amending and restating in full the Transfer and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 12, 2001 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Funding (USA) Inc. V, as Transferor, HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee of the HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I, hereby certify that:

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Company from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below: |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | NONE |
|--------|------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this 16th day of March 2009.

 

HSBC Card Services Inc. (formerly known as HSBC Private Label Corporation)

 

 

By:  /s/ Mike A. Reeves

|   | Name:  Mike A. Reeves |
|--------|-----------------------|

Title:  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jacinta Sit, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Oxford Technologies, Inc.



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.







|                                                              | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Jacinta Sit                                               | 
|Jacinta Sit, President                                        | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) | 



Date:   April 16, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02550-WYD-MJW

SIAMAK AMIRINOOR,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate

Scheduling Conference (docket no. 8) is GRANTED finding good cause shown. The

Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set on January 11, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED

and reset to February 21, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom A-502, Alfred A. Arraj United

States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, 80294. The parties shall file

their proposed Rule 16 Scheduling Order five (5) business days prior to the Scheduling

Conference. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall forthwith serve the Defendant or

SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed on February 21, 2012. 

Date: December 2, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02550-RPM Document 10 Filed 12/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000766041
<NAME> CENTRAL SPRINKLER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.0000
<CASH>                                             728
<SECURITIES>                                    13,242
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,145
<INVENTORY>                                     54,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,273
<PP&E>                                          75,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,883
<BONDS>                                         78,783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,261
<SALES>                                         53,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,452
<CGS>                                           38,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,387
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    542
<INCOME-TAX>                                       176
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                366
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       366
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11


</TABLE>
# 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

I, Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of TierOne Corporation
(the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | (1) | The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
               2007, as amended pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K (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(a) 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 the
Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                      |                            
|--------------------- | ---------------------------
|Date:  April 25, 2008 | By: /s/ Eugene B. Witkowicz
|                      | Eugene B. Witkowicz        
|                      | Executive Vice President   
|                      | and Chief Financial Officer
#### **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

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code),the undersigned officer of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation, (the “Company”) doeshereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) that:

 

3.    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

4.    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 29, 2006 |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
|                      | /s/  R. Herbert Hampton |
|                      | R.  Herbert Hampton |
|                      | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL WAYNE SHIFFLETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-99-42, CA-00-77-3)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wayne Shifflett, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wayne Shifflett appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000), and a subsequent order denying relief on his

motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for

reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not bring up for review the

merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it toll the

period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. See

Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7,

264-65, 268-69 (1978).

Because Shifflett did not file his Rule 60(b) motion within

ten days of the district court’s order denying relief on his § 2255

motion, entered on November 20, 2000, the time period for filing

his appeal of that order was not tolled. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(4). Shifflett had sixty days to appeal the district court’s

November order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). He did not appeal

until February 23, 2001, twenty-three days after the court denied

reconsideration. Therefore, Shifflett’s appeal is only timely as

to the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for

reconsideration. This court reviews a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion

for abuse of discretion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667,

669 (4th Cir. 1995).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district

court’s denial of Shifflett’s motion for reconsideration did not
3

constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we 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
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 10, 2004*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.106 Federal Government** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|