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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       8,056,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  872,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    797,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,698,000
<PP&E>                                      69,274,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,714,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,958,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       85,785,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (23,236,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,958,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,516,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,217,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,414,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,139,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,139,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,139,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Helvetia Asset Recovery 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 24, 2014

No. 04-14-00012-CV

Burton KAHN,

Appellant

v.

HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY INC.,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-18355

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this interlocutory appeal, Appellant Burton Kahn filed a notice of appeal stating the 

following:

Defendant Burton Kahn desires to appeal from the cause number 2013CI18355. 

The Court did not rule on Plaintiff being a Foreign Corporation and is 

Maintaining Suit Without a Certificate of Authority by the court 407th Judicial 

District Bexar County, Texas on December 11, 2013.

In an order dated January 23, 2014, we explained that it appeared from his notice of appeal that 

Kahn is complaining the trial court did not rule on his Motion to Show Authority at a hearing 

held on December 11, 2013. Thus, Kahn’s notice of appeal did not point to an appealable 

interlocutory order, but instead complained of a trial court’s failure to rule on a motion. We 

explained that we have no jurisdiction over a trial court’s failure to rule on a motion in an 

interlocutory appeal. 

This court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments or orders. A judgment or 

order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending parties and claims 

before the court. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here, there is no 

final judgment or order. Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if a specific statute authorizes 

such an interlocutory appeal. In Kahn’s response to our show cause order, he states that he is 

appealing from the trial court’s temporary injunction. Section 51.014(a)(4) of the Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code states that a person may appeal from an interlocutory order that 
“grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary 

injunction as provide by Chapter 65.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ' 51.014(a)(4). 

Because the temporary injunction granted in this case is an appealable interlocutory order, we 

retain this case on the docket of this court and reinstate appellate deadlines.

Because the clerk’s and reporter’s records have been filed, we ORDER appellant to file 

his brief on or before March 17, 2014.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 58451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23995]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12279 and <greek-i>12280]


Iowa Disaster Number IA-00024

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION:  Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1930-DR), dated 08/14/2010.
    Incident: Severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 06/01/2010 through 08/31/2010.
    Effective Date: 09/17/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/13/2010.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/16/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Iowa, dated 08/14/2010 is hereby amended 
to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): 
Appanoose, Wapello.
Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Iowa: Davis, Jefferson.
    Missouri: Putnam, Schuyler.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-23995 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Automobile Underwriters, Inc. *v.*Swatts

[No. 19,468.

Filed September 29, 1960.]

*Steers, Klee, Jay & Sullivan,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Townsend & Townsend,*of Indianapolis, for appellee.

Bierly, C. J.

This cause was filed in this Court on March 25, 1960 and submitted on said date. On April 13, 1960, appellant filed a petition for extension of time in which to file appellant’s brief. Petition was granted to and including May 25, 1960. Appellant’s brief was filed May 25, I960* and acknowledgment of service of brief by appellee was filed on said date.

On July 20, 1960 appellant filed a written motion to dismiss its appeal and also filed acknowledgment of service of its dismissal by appellee.

Appellee failing to take any action on appellant’s motion to dismiss this action, the Court now grants said motion for dismissal by appellant.

It Is Now Ordered by the Court that this cause of action be dismissed.

*64Action, dismissed with costs, if any, taxed against appellant.

Note. — Reported in 169 N. E. 2d 297.
H. R. 1594 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Hermitage, 

Pennsylvania, as the Michael A. Marzano Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MICHAEL A. MARZANO DEPARTMENT 

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Hermitage, Pennsylvania, shall after the date 

of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 

‘‘Michael A. Marzano Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

Clinic’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 

document, record, or other paper of the United States to the outpatient clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to 

be a reference to the Michael A. Marzano Department of Veterans 

Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### John ROTH, Appellant, v. G.W. ROD BUSTERS, INC. and United Self-Insured Services, Appellees.

No. 1D09-5785.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 28, 2010.

Laurence Leavy, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

William Bassett, Jr., Miami, for Appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of Appellant’s untimely response to this court’s March 25, 2010, order, we DISMISS this appeal. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.410.

KAHN, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
#### POLARIS ENGINEERING, INC. v. PELICAN REFINING COMPANY, LLC.

No. 2011-CC-0006.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Polaris Engineering, Inc.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2006-2137; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01354.

Denied.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00083

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231

- 671264

- 19

Before Birdwell, Basse l , and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### L EONARDO 

### V ENZOR 

### , Appellant

V



### .
S TEPHANIE 

### V ENZOR 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On March 1 0, 2020, and March 23, 2020, we notified appellant, in accordance
with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless
appellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant ha s not

done so. See T e x. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).
Because appellant ha s not complied with a procedural requirement and the
Texas Supreme Cou rt’s order of August 28, 2015, 1 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).
Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 9, 2020

1 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9158 (Au g. 28, 2015 ) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7546

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERNARD GIBSON, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:94-

cr-00454; 8:05-cv-01437-PJM)

Submitted: February 7, 2007 Decided: February 16, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Gibson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and the

order construing his motion for reconsideration as a successive

§ 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gibson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gibson’s motion

for 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00313

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

James Burke JARREAU

, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5552

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant State of Texas’s motion to

dismiss appellee James Burke Jarreau’s cross appeal is DENIED AS MOOT and the trial c ourt’s

order granting the motion to quash is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED June 22, 2016.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) of Vista Medical Technologies, Inc. of our report dated January
31, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Vista
Medical Technologies, Inc. included in its Annual report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Vista Medical
Technologies, Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility
of Vista Medical Technologies, Inc.'s management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial
statements schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the
basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.


                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                                    ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
March 27, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

PENNSYLVANIA SERVICES 

CORPORATION, TRADING AS 

EMERALD COAL RESOURCES, LP, 

AND PENNSYLVANIA LAND HOLDINGS 

COMPANY, LLC 

 v. 

TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP 

PETITION OF: AMICUS CURIAE 

INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 78 WM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of November, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Amicus Curiae Statement in Support of Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - 50 CFR Part 648

### CFR Correction

In Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 600 to 659, revised as of October 1, 2009, on page 639, in § 648.92, remove the second paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v).

[FR Doc. 2010-24660 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
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



In connection with the Annual Report of eAutoclaims, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K of the year ended July 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2007 (the Report), I, Larry Colton, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of eAutoclaims, Inc.



|Date: | May 24, 2007 |  |                    |                                    
|----- | ------------ |  | ------------------ | -----------------------------------
|     
|      |              |  | /s/   Larry Colton
|      |              |  | Print Name:Title:  | Larry ColtonChief Financial Officer

---
#### STATE ex rel. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2655.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Lay, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 130364, 130275, 197086, 215530, 383759; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1511.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,109,027
<SECURITIES>                                 3,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,949,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (340,119)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,397,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,370,713
<PP&E>                                       5,511,236
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,386,241)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,247,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,039,896
<BONDS>                                        178,370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          7
<COMMON>                                       113,907
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,915,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,247,749
<SALES>                                      3,423,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,423,837
<CGS>                                        2,587,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,587,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,343,168
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,452,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,452,636)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,452,636)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.233)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.233)
        

</TABLE>
#### Guy BLAIN, Petitioner, v. Maria BLAIN, Respondent.

No. 3D11-111.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 31, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 2011.

Louis C. Arslanian, Hollywood, for petitioner.

Kim A. Marjenhoff, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

Before SHEPHERD, LAGOA, and EMAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Denied. *See Select Builders of Fla., Inc. v. Wong,*367 So.2d 1089, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (“[W]e find the court to be correct in striking the voluntary dismissal and reinstating the matter to prevent a fraud on the court.”); *accord Tobkin v. State, 777*So.2d 1160, 1163-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Florida courts have determined that this right to dismiss [voluntarily] is almost absolute. An exception to *548this absolute right arises where the party taking the voluntary dismissal perpetrates a fraud on the court.”) (citations omitted).