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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,151                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,149                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,173                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,720,274                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 394,211                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,494,411                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,531                       0
<BONDS>                                        928,000                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     28,218                       0
<COMMON>                                           806                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,901                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,494,411                       0
<SALES>                                        160,519                 395,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,407                 427,753
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,620                 266,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,593                  60,255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,194                 101,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,386                  34,404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,808                  66,763
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,366                  65,431
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.45                    0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43                    0.89


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS (BEFORE
FIXED CHARGES) TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
DIVIDENDS
(In thousands, except ratios)
(Unaudited)
  Six MonthsEnded
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,June 30, 2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Fixed charges
    
    $
    75,957
    
    
    $
    258,453
    
    
    $
    275,648
    
    
    $
    235,521
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    10,122
    
    
    
    20,251
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,259Combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    86,079
    
    
    $
    278,704
    
    
    $
    295,904
    
    
    $
    255,777
    
    
    $
    127,165
    
    
    $
    65,198Fixed charges
    
    $
    75,957
    
    
    $
    258,453
    
    
    $
    275,648
    
    
    $
    235,521
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939Income from continuing
operations
    
    
    84,583
    
    
    
    125,923
    
    
    
    24,713
    
    
    
    3,843
    
    
    
    17,195
    
    
    
    39,869$
    160,540
    
    
    $
    384,376
    
    
    $
    300,361
    
    
    $
    239,364
    
    
    $
    124,104
    
    
    $
    84,808Ratio of income from continuing
operations (before fixed
charges) to combined fixed
charges and preferred
stock dividends
    
    
    1.87:1
    
    
    
    1.38:1
    
    
    
    1.02:1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.30:1Deficiency of income from
continuing operations (before
fixed charges) to combined fixed
charges and preferred stock
dividends
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    16,413
    
    
    $
    3,061
#### KENNETH NOVAK v. IDOLO AMODIO, T/A QUINN’S TAVERN.

January 13, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: RE LOCATION OF MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT S 38 - 1 - 0 7 and 38 -2 - 0 4 AND CONSOLIDATION OF FACILITIES FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS 38 - 1 - 0 6 , 3 8 - 1 - 0 7 and 38 -2 - 0 4 WI TH IN THE THIRTY- EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE COMMON WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **:** NO. 410 MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER**

**P ER CURIA** **M AN**  **D NOW**  , this 9 th day of February 20 1 7 , upon consideration of the Petition to Relocate Magisterial District Courts 38 - 1 - 0 7 and 38 -2 - 04 and Consolidate Magisterial Districts 38 - 1 - 06 , 38 - 1 -0 7 and 38 -2 - 04 of the Thirty- eighth Judicial District (Montgomery County) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania into one facility located at 925 Montgomery Avenue, Narberth, PA it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is GRANTED, effect ive November 1, 2016.
j ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 24-0364 

ANASTASIA SHIHO LAKE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SHERYL ZIEGLER, 

Commander, 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

rr w' 71 

&no 11141, 

JUN 1 8 2024 

Bowen C;reenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

Anastasia Shiho Lake has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, requesting her 

release from the Missoula County Detention Facility. She indicates that her bail is 

excessive, but she has provided no amount. Lake explains that she was arrested on March 

10, 2024, and that due to her mental health care needs, she asks for leniency. She contends 

that her constitutional, civil, and "parenting rights are being violated by the 4th Judicial 

[District] Court." She adds that she has not been sentenced by this "` Crime of Passion,' 

yet" she has learned that may have a year of incarceration "for her crimes" before 

sentencing. Lake expresses concern for her children and feels that as an Asian woman, she 

faces a double standard in the criminal judicial system. 

We secured a copy of the Missoula County District Court's register of actions. The 

court granted leave for the State to file its Amended Information on March 11, 2024. The 

court issued an arrest warrant that day with a bond amount of $25,000. The court has since 

held two hearings, and counsel for Lake filed a notice of appearance on April 11, 2024. A 

few days later, the court issued an order for commitment to the State Hospital for 

examination. Since then, the State has sought leave to file a Second Amended Information, 

for which the court granted leave and set another arraignment. 

06/18/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0364
Lake's remedy for relief is not with this Court, and she is not entitled to release. 

The cause of her incarceration is her pending criminal case. Gates v. Missoula Cnty. 

Comm'rs, 236 Mont. 261, 261-262, 766P.2d 884, 884-885 (1988). Following an 

arraignment, Lake awaits to be transported to the State Hospital for an evaluation. 

Her claims cannot be addressed by a writ of habeas corpus. Lake has not 

demonstrated illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. She has not shown want 

of bail here either. Section 46-22-103, MCA. This Court has determined that a district 

court has the discretion to grant or deny release and bail as well to set conditions. Grafft 

v. Mont. Fourth Judicial Dist. Ct., 2021 MT 201, ¶ 11, 405 Mont. 192, 492 P.3d 1213. The 

District Court set a bail amount in her case. Lake should present any concerns to her 

attorney. Lake is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Lake's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and 

DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the Honorable Leslie 

Halligan, District Court Judge; Amy McGhee, Clerk of District Court, under Cause No. 

DC 24-107, and for distribution to the counsel of record there; Commander Ziegler; 

counsel of record, and AW,sia Shiho Lake personally. 

DATED this r Ta-y of June, 2024. 

Justices 

2
f10q0314ex10vii_dandritbio.htm


Exhibit 10.7


 


LETTER OF SUPPORT


 



The undersigned, Paseco ApS CVR. - No 31 36 36 08, which is a shareholder of the parent company to Dandrit Biotech A/S CVR. - No. 26 02 73 22 hereby issue the following letter of support in the amount of DKK 2m to Dandrit Biotech A/S to ensure continued operation until 1 February 20 15.


 


Dandrit Biotech A/S can call in the loan at their di scretion at either the full amount of DKK 2m or in any smaller installments.


 


Any loan issued under this note will be subject to the same term s as the current loans from Paseco ApS to Dandrit Biotech A/S issued under loan agreement signed on 30 April 2014.









On behalf of Paseco ApS


Copenhagen, 2/5-2014


 


/s/ Ole Abildgaard                                  


Ole Abildgaard
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS INCLUDED
HEREIN AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,357
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,418
<INVENTORY>                                     83,719
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,549
<PP&E>                                         504,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                 223,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 603,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          120,126
<BONDS>                                        208,036
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                     238,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   603,549
<SALES>                                        518,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               518,542
<CGS>                                          422,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  422,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     3
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,574
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,810
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,764
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,764
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10


</TABLE>
<PAGE>






                                   EXHIBIT 23

                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants




The Board of Directors
First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-85749) on Form S-8 of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated
January 31, 2003 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of First Manitowoc
Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the
related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
for the three years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 which report appears
in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of First Manitowoc Bancorp,
Inc.




Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson LLP

Green Bay, Wisconsin
March 14, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2013

s1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2013

147895

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147895

COA: 309750

St. Clair CC: 11-002706-FH

EDWARD MICHAELSHAUN BRABSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000768216
<NAME>                        National Air Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,635
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       738
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,373)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,029)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)
        



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Mary Maddalena, Petitioner, against Municipal Court of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

April 9, 1957.

*666
      *James J. Hanrahan*for petitioner.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Barnett Levy*of counsel), for Municipal Court and another, respondents.

*Abraham M. Stanger,*defendant in person and for other defendants.

Benedict D. Dineen, J.

This is a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act seeking to restrain and enjoin the respondents from continuing to assume jurisdiction or to take any further steps in the prosecution of a certain action. The respondent Justices cross-move to dismiss the petition for insufficiency and the respondents who are plaintiffs in the controversial action also cross-move. The action was instituted in the Municipal Court of the City of New York pursuant to section 170 of the Decedent Estate Law authorizing an action against the surviving spouse to the extent of the assets paid or distributed to her. This section clearly indicates that the persons succeeding to the decedent’s estate or any portion thereof are liable only to the extent of assets so received. The mere fact that the complaint against the defendant does not limit the liability of the defendant to such extent does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. Remedies other than prohibition are available to the defendant in such instance either by motion to dismiss the complaint or by way of an appeal. In any event it is apparent that the action is one over which the Municipal Court has jurisdiction and prohibition does not lie for the purpose of obtaining a review of a determination made in a civil action by a court of record or a judge thereof which can be reviewed by an appeal or an application for a rehearing. The motion is denied and the cross motions are granted.
#### Famous Beers Inc., Plaintiff, v. John Campbell, as President of Beer Drivers Union Local 124 International Brotherhood of Teamsters A. F. L.— C. I. O., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

March 14, 1957.

*Yellin & Levy*for plaintiff.

I. *Philip Sipser*for defendants.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

This is a motion to assess damages resulting from the issuance of *a*restraining order.

Plaintiff commenced an action to restrain defendants from picketing the former’s place of business and a temporary *39restraining order issued. Defendants moved to vacate the order and to dismiss the complaint under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The restraining order was vacated, but before final disposition of the motion plaintiff discontinued the action without defendant’s consent by filing notice thereof as provided in rule 301 (subd. 1, par. [a]) of the Rules of Civil Practice. The application to assess damages is opposed by plaintiff on the ground that no further proceedings may be had in the action already terminated and that defendants are relegated to a plenary suit on the bond.

Plaintiff’s discontinuance of the action without the consent of the defendants is deemed an adjudication that plaintiff was not entitled to the restraining order. No authority has been called to my attention that defendants’ remedy is restricted to a plenary suit. They are plainly entitled to damages under section 894 of the Civil Practice Act, following termination of suit. (See *Wise Shoe Co.*v. Fischer, 158 Misc. 514, and cases cited.) Plaintiff contends that the bond having been fixed at only $250 instead of $1,000 as required under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act for the issuance of a temporary restraining order in labor disputes, is determinative of the nature of the action and conclusively establishes that no labor dispute under that section is here involved. I do not agree. In signing an order to show cause, containing a temporary stay, the court cannot be expected, nor should it be required, to make a summary and conclusive determination of what frequently resolves itself into a sharp question of fact as to whether or not the action involves a labor dispute. In fixing the amount of a bond the court is required to rely upon the moving papers, knowing that the party restrained has the right to move to vacate the order or to increase the amount of the bond.

However this may be, it is wholly immaterial whether or not the action involved a labor dispute because the general provisions as to undertakings for the ascertainment of damages also apply to *“*labor dispute ” injunctions issued under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act (10 Carmody-Wait on New York Practice, p. 783); nor is it presently necessary, having resolved the principle at issue, to determine whether the amount of damages allowed to defendants is limited by the amount of the bond.

The motion is granted and the matter referred to an official referee to assess defendants’ damages.

Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zond-PanAero Windsystem Partners I
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mary H.Cilia, Chief Financial Officer of Zond Windsystems
Management LLC, as General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

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

      (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Partnership for the three months ended June 30, 2005.



Date: August 15, 2005

                                            /s/ MARY H. CILIA
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Mary H. Cilia
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            Zond Windsystems Management LLC, as
                                            General Partner of Zond-PanAero
                                            Windsystem Partners I
Exhibit 10.39

 

AMENDMENT NO.1 TO LEASE AGREEMENT

 

This AMENDMENT NO. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the LEASE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) between Logic International Consulting Group (the “Landlord”), US Rare Earths, Inc. (the “Tenant”) dated as of September 30, 2013.

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, on June 1, 2013, the Company, the Landlord and Tenant entered into the Agreement;

 

WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement as further set forth herein;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of and for the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

 

10.            SECURITY DEPOSIT: A security deposit representing the first month and last month will be due in full.

 

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first stated above.

 

	
/s/   Diane M. Cassidy
    	
 
    	
11/4/13
    
	
Landlord:   Diane M. Cassidy, Partner
    	
 
    	
Date
    
	
LOGIC INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING GROUP
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Kevin M. Cassidy
    	
 
    	
11/4/13
    
	
Tenant:   Kevin M. Cassidy, CEO
    	
 
    	
Date
    
	
U.S. RARE EARTHS, INC.