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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000921066
<NAME>                        Restaurant Teams International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         91,280
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  483,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    17,533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               592,211
<PP&E>                                         9,184,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (458,505)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,318,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          451,101
<BONDS>                                        3,738,477
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       103,011
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,025,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,318,569
<SALES>                                        238,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               284,028
<CGS>                                          51,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  209,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             37,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (172,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (172,210)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (172,210)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)



</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 USSTRATCOM detects, tracks North Korean submarine missile launchPublished April 25, 2016
                        
                        By U.S. Strategic Command Public Affairs
                **OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. (AFNS)  --**
                U.S. Strategic Command systems detected and tracked what was assessed as a North Korean submarine missile launch from the Sea of Japan at 4:29 a.m. CDT on April 23.According to North American Aerospace Defense Command, the missile launched from North Korea did not pose a threat to North America. The men and women of USSTRATCOM, NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, and U.S. Pacific Command remain vigilant in the face of North Korean provocations and are fully committed to working closely with South Korean and Japanese allies to maintain security.USSTRATCOM's mission is to conduct global operations in synchronization with other combatant commands and appropriate U.S. government agencies to detect, deter and prevent strategic attacks against the U.S., its allies, and partners and to be prepared to deliver warfighting capability to defend the nation.North Korea 



missile 



USSTRATCOM
##### 



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
  
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 13, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company for the periods presented therein.
  /s/ ANDREW HAMERAndrew HamerVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### C. U. CONNELLEE v. A. J. DOAKE.

(No. 6437.)

Appeal from Eastland County.

R. B. Truly, counsel for appellant.

B. F. Cotton, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 98. *Practice; fraudulent attempt to confer jurisdiction; plea of, submitted to and determined by judge, should not be submitted to jury; exemplary damages; allegation and proof of.*Appellee brought this suit to recover $100 actual and $200 exemplary damages done to his horse by a barbed-wire fence erected by appellant. He recovered judgment for $50 actual damages. Appellant pleaded that appellee had fraudulently alleged an amount of damages greater than he was legally entitled to recover under the allegations of his petition, and greater than the evidence would entitle him to recover, for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction of the cause upon the county court. Appellant submitted his plea to the judge, not demanding at the time that it should be tried by a jury, and the judge, after hearing the evidence offered upon the issue made by said plea, found against and overruled it. This finding and ruling of the judge were correct. Under the allegations the petition showed a good cause of action for both the actual and the exemplary damages claimed by him. Gross negligence in the construction of the fence was alleged, and this allegation would authorize, if proved, the recovery of exemplary damages, and the amount of that character of damages claimed in the petition cannot be held to be excessive or unreasonable. In view of the evidence in the case appellee had reasonable grounds upon which to base his claim for exemplary damages, and was, we think, *147legally entitled to recover such damages. [2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 772.] When the cause went to the jury appellant proposed to submit the issue made by said plea to the jury, and offered evidence in support of said plea. The judge refused to admit said evidence, and declined to submit the plea to the jury. In this there was no error. It is true that the proper practice would have been to have submitted said issue, under proper instructions, for the determination of the jury [Railway Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 650; Dwyer v. Bassett, 68 Tex. 271; 3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 355]; but appellant cannot complain of a departure frdm the proper practice in this case, because he submitted said plea to the adjudication of the judge, and thereby waived and deprived himself of the right to have it submitted to the jury. One adjudication of the plea was all he was entitled to, and that was accorded to him in the mode chosen by himself. Other questions presented in appellant’s brief have been determined adversely to him in former decisions of this court. [2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 360-363, 771.]

April 26, 1890.

Affirmed.
|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Cresud S.A.C.I.F. y A (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report . |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|           | Cresud S.A.C.I.F y A |                           |
|----------------|----------------------|--------------------------------|
|           |                 |                           |   |
| March 16, 2016 | By:                  | /s/ Alejandro G. Elsztain |   |
|           |                 | Alejandro G.  Elsztain    |   |
|           |                 | Chief Executive Officer        |   |

----
#### The Detroit River Savings Bank v. The Board of Assessors of the City of Detroit.

[See *ante,*509.]

*Taxes*— Real-estate *mortgages.*

This ease is ruled by *Latham v. Board of Assessors, ante,*509.

*Mandamus.*

Argued May 3, 1892.

Granted May 6,

and opinion filed May 11, 1892.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to compel the assessment to it as real estate of the value of real-estate mortgages held by it, and the deduction of the same from the value of its capital stock, as determined for assessment purposes. *515The facts are stated in the opinion, and in *Latham v. Board of Assessors, ante,*509.

*Wells, Angell, Boynton & McMillan,*for relator.

*John J. Speed,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

The relator is a corporation, organized and doing business under the laws of this State, in the city of Detroit. It has a capital stock of $100,000, which has been assessed by the board of assessors for taxation at the sum of $106,000. It is the owner of mortgages to the value of $63,800 on real estate situate in Wayne county, and also of mortgages to the value of $7,100 on real estate outside of said county, but within this State. The relator made a statement containing a list of said mortgages, the names of the mortgagors, the names of the mortgagees, the descriptions oE the land, and present value of said mortgages, for the board of assessors, claiming it to be the duty of said board to assess to the relator the value of all of said mortgages, and to deduct the sum from the assessed valuation of the capital stock. This the board of assessors refused to do, and pursued the same mode of assessment as shown by the resolutions of said board, set out in *Latham v. Board of Assessors, ante,*509.

The relator prays for a *mandamus*against the board of assessors, directing them to assess the value of the mortgages against the relator, so far as the property covered by said mortgages is subject to taxation by said board, and that the board be compelled to deduct the full value of the mortgages held by said bank from the assessed valuation of its capital stock,

The writ of *mandamus*must be granted, for the reasons stated in *Latham v. Board of Assessors.*

McGrath, J., did not sit.
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0250

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RONALD L. GOLAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including July 2, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

May 21 2024

05/21/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0250
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8Nos. 333-51184, 333-106532, 333-125895 and 333-134622),pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000 Employee Stock PurchasePlan and the 2000 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan of RigelPharmaceuticals, Inc.; the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-72492)pertaining to the 2001 Non-Officer Equity Incentive Plan of RigelPharmaceuticals, Inc.; the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-107062and 333-139516) pertaining to the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan ofRigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; the Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-111782) pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan ofRigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3Nos. 333-74906, 333-87276, 333-105431, 333-106942, 333-111777,333-112746, 333-119785 and 333-129650) and the relatedProspectuses, respectively, of our reports dated March 6, 2007, withrespect to the financial statements of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., RigelPharmaceuticals, Inc.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. includedin this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2006.

|  |   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|--|--------|--------------------------------|

 

Palo Alto, CaliforniaMarch 6, 2007

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

|   | (2) | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|             |                  CresudS.A.C.I.F. y A. |                                      |
|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|             |                                                                                                                        |                                      |   |
| October31, 2018. | By:                                                                                                                         | /s/ MatiasGaivironsky                |   |
|             |                                                                                                                        | MatiasGaivironsky                         |   |
|             |                                                                                                                        | ChiefFinancial and Administrative 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
  (1)
    
    The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ S. Mae Fujita NumataS. Mae Fujita Numata
Senior Vice President
Chief Financial Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 140 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the amounts reimbursed 

to institutional providers of health care services under the TRICARE 

program to be the same as amounts reimbursed under Medicare, and 

to require the Secretary of Defense to contract for health care services 

with at least one teaching hospital in urban areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the 

amounts reimbursed to institutional providers of health 

care services under the TRICARE program to be the 

same as amounts reimbursed under Medicare, and to 

require the Secretary of Defense to contract for health 

care services with at least one teaching hospital in urban 

areas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 140 IH

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE PROGRAM REIM2 BURSEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL PROVIDERS 

3 OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO BE IDEN4 TICAL TO REIMBURSEMENT UNDER MEDI5 CARE. 

6 Section 1079(j)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘determined to the extent prac8 ticable in accordance with the same reimbursement rules 

9 as apply to payments to’’ and inserting ‘‘identical to the 

10 amount of payments that would be paid to’’. 

11 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE PROGRAM TO CON12 TRACT WITH AT LEAST ONE TEACHING HOS13 PITAL IN URBAN AREAS FOR DELIVERY OF 

14 HEALTH CARE. 

15 Section 1097(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 

16 amended— 

17 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The Secretary of 

18 Defense’’; 

19 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The’’ 

20 and inserting ‘‘Subject to paragraph (2), the’’; 

21 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 

22 and (4) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), re23 spectively; and 

24 (4) by adding at the end the following new 

25 paragraph: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 140 IH

1 ‘‘(2) In contracting for the delivery of health care 

2 under this section, the Secretary shall contract with at 

3 least one teaching hospital in each large urban area. In 

4 this paragraph— 

5 ‘‘(A) the term ‘teaching hospital’ means a hos6 pital which has a teaching program approved as 

7 specified in section 1861(b)(6) of the Social Security 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(6)); and 

9 ‘‘(B) the term ‘large urban area’ has the mean10 ing given that term in the second sentence of section 

11 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 1395ww(d)(2)(D)).’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### Fort Worth & D. C. R’y Co. v. G. F. Tomlinson.

(No. 6301.)

Appeal from Wilbarger County.

J. M. O’Neal, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 114. *Negligence; a question of fact; burden of proof of; measure of damages.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $260 damages for the destruction, by fire escaping from appellant’s engine, of grass, and for injury to the sod, etc. The grass was on uninclosed land belonging to and used by appellee for pasture for his stock, but other persons’ stock also pastured upon the same land.' It was error to instruct the jury that, if they believed from the evidence that the grass was destroyed by fire in manner and form as charged in plaintiff’s petition, a *prima facie*case of negligence and carelessness would be established against the defendant. Negligence was a question of fact, to be determined by the jury from the evidence, and it was wrong for the court tó instruct that the latters alleged in the petition constituted negligence. Furthermore, as to a portion of the grass destroyed, there is no allegation in the petition that the destruction resulted from the negligence of ap*176pellant. [2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 64, 67, 209, 486, 693; Railway *Co.*v. Wilson, *60 Tex.*142; Railway Co. v. Davidson, 61 Tex. 204.]

May 16, 1890.

Appellant requested a special instruction that the burden of proof of negligence was on plaintiff. This instruction the court refused to give the jury, and the refusal was error. [2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 64, 421.]

Appellant’s special instructions 3 and 4, as to the measure of damages, and which the court refused to give the jury, are, we think, correct in principle, and applicable to the facts of this case, and it was error to refuse them [Railway Co. v. Schofield, 72 Tex. 496; Railway Co. v. Hogsett, 67 Tex. 685], inasmuch as the charge given by the court did not correctly state the measure of damages applicable to the facts proved.

Reversed and remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2435]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 17, 2010, 11 a.m. to 
February 17, 2010, 2 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 26, 2010, 75 FR 4095.
    The meeting title has been changed to ``Member Conflict: CDIN and 
CNN Member Applications I.'' The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: January 28, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-2435 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lynn BESS, III.

No. 2010-KO-2368.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 25, 2011.

In re Bess III, Lynn; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-F3173; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-358-KA.

Denied.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SHERMAN CAR WASH EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 14030.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

March 1, 1960.

Thomas J. McDermott, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Thomas Roumell, 7th Regional Director, N. L. R. B., Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

Kleath A. Kembel, Detroit, Mich., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the motion of Petitioner for leave to withdraw without prejudice the National Labor Relations Board’s petition for enforcement and certified list in the above case is granted.