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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 1999 (unaudited) and Consolidated
Statements of Income for the three months ended December 31, 1999 (unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,284,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,326,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,894,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (752,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,407,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,132,000
<PP&E>                                       6,459,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,707,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,563,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,089,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,982,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,149,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,563,000
<SALES>                                     11,723,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,723,000
<CGS>                                        7,117,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,117,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,827,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,017,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   743,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,274,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,274,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,550,619
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    358,502
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,043,233
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,044,544
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 485,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,482,888
<COMMON>                                        58,060
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,075,483
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            389,989
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,523,532
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           49,279
<PREFERRED>                                     43,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,633,402
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             458,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  221,392
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,554,283
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                5,482,888
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,851,427
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            87,721
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,500,008
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,587,729
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        263,698
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               8,965
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 272,663
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       126,200
<NET-INCOME>                                   146,463
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      5,960
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  140,503
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       103,099
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,053
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         183,360
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.76


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT ll

                 MULTIMEDIA ACCESS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENT RE: CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            For the Three Months Ended              For the Six Months Ended
                                                                     June 30,                               June 30,
                                                            ---------------------------------------------------------------
LOSS PER SHARE DATA:                                            1996              1997            l996             l997
                                                            -------------     ------------    -------------   --------------
                                                             (UNAUDITED)       (UNAUDITED)     (UNAUDITED)      (UNAUDITED)

<S>                                                         <C>               <C>             <C>             <C>          
Net loss as reported in the financial statements            $  (999,180)      $(1,571,876)    $(2,058,157)    $ (2,978,409)
                                                            ------------      ------------    ------------    -------------
Weighted average number of common shares                  
 outstanding                                                  4,805,817         7,907,434       4,632,794        7,268,660

Common and common equivalent shares issued
 in the twelve month period preceding the filing
 date of the initial public offering as required by
SAB No. 83:
 Common stock                                                    38,145                 -         140,506                -
 Incentive stock options                                        266,356                 -         266,356                -
 Non-qualified stock option                                      40,208                 -          40,208                -
 Warrants                                                       778,613                 -         778,613                -

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON AND COMMON
 EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING AS REPORTED IN THE           ------------      ------------    ------------    -------------
 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS                                         5,929,139         7,907,434       5,858,477        7,268,660
                                                            ------------      ------------    ------------    -------------
LOSS PER SHARE AS REPORTED IN THE FINANCIAL
 STATEMENTS                                                 $     (0.17)      $     (0.20)    $     (0.35)    $      (0.41)
                                                            ============      ============    ============    =============
</TABLE>

                                       13
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6220

ANTHONY EDEN CAVINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LAWRENCE GREER, Warden Central Facility, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-76-AM) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 18, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Eden Cavins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 1, 1999. It is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Eden Cavins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cavins v. Greer , No. CA-99-76-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 1999). * We deny Cavins’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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
584 A.2d 212

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SHALABY SHAKIR.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1782

___________

Lincoln Benefit Life Company, Inc., *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

eWealth USA, Inc.; eWealth America, *

Inc.; Argent Capital Corporation; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Argent Financial Services, Inc., *

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: October 11, 2002

Filed: October 18, 2002

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following a bench trial, the District Court1

 found that Appellants

(AFS/eWealth) breached a February 2000 credit agreement with Lincoln Benefit Life

Company (LBL). AFS/eWealth had argued that its president, Sam Watson, did not

have the authority to enter into the agreement. The District Court also found in LBL's
-2-

favor with respect to AFS/eWealth's counterclaim that the parties formed a credit

agreement in 1999 that LBL breached. AFS/eWealth now challenges the District

Court's findings of fact with respect to the February 2000 contract and the alleged

1999 agreement. AFS/eWealth also argues that the District Court should have taken

LBL's admissions as conclusive fact that a 1999 agreement existed and that the

District Court improperly allocated the burden of proof to AFS/eWealth on the issue

of Watson's lack of authority.

We review a district court's findings of fact, such as those concerning the

existence of a contract, for clear error, see Kansas City Power and Light Co. v.

Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 707 F.2d 1002, 1003 (8th Cir. 1983), and we review

its findings of law de novo, see Appley Bros. v. United States, 164 F.3d 1164, 1170

(8th Cir. 1999). Having done so, we agree with the District Court, for the reasons it

provided, that AFS/eWealth breached the February 2000 contract and that the parties

did not enter into another contract in 1999 or at any other time. 

As for the procedural disputes, we also agree with the District Court. First, the

District Court did not err in construing LBL's admissions. Second, although

AFS/eWealth argues that Watson lacked authority to enter into the February 2000

agreement, we agree with the District Court that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(e), AFS/eWealth waived this issue by not raising it in the pretrial order.

Relatedly, because AFS/eWealth waived its argument on the lack-of-authority issue,

any dispute over the burden of proof concerning that issue is moot. 

None of the District Court's findings of fact is clearly erroneous, and no error

of law appears. We therefore affirm the judgment in favor of LBL on the basis of the

District Court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000921929
<NAME>                        Frontier Airlines, Inc.

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          99,079,066
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,569,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                       388,014
<INVENTORY>                                      2,682,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,617,598
<PP&E>                                          31,146,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,883,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,710,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,525,431
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            17,794
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,249,171
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,710,211
<SALES>                                        112,808,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,808,744
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,435,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,608,534)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,964,331
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,516,089
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,448,242
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,448,242
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.85



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2066

NED N. CARY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-31) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 13, 2002 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ned N. Cary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; George G. Davidson, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Louis EdwardMatthews, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Ned N. Cary, Jr., appeals the district court’s order: (1) denying relief on his complaint alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001); and (2) upholding the Commissioner’sdecision that Cary is not entitled to disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cary v. Social Security Admin. , No. CA-01-31 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 7.

#### Hiram Williams, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Thomas H. Dawson, defendant in error.

[1.] Where a defendant has failed to appear at the first term of the Oourt, and file his answer in writing, as required by the Judiciary Act of 1*799, he will not be permitted at the first term after an appeal has been entered, to file a *new*answer, under the rule which allows him to amend his answer. He is not allowed to plead *de novo*at that time, as matter of right; but he may pay up all costs which have accrued, open the default, and plead instan ter to the merits of the action, as provided by the 37 th Common Law rule of practice.

Assumpsit, in Dooly Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers. October Term, 1852.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Dawson against Williams, on a promissory note, returnable to the May Term, 1851, of Dooly Superior Court. At the April Term, 1852, *45the defendant confessed judgment, and entered an appeal, having filed no plea.

At the October Term, 1852, counsel for the defendant moved the Court to allow him to open the default, pay the cost, and plead instanter to the merits of the action.

The Court overruled the motion, and counsel for defendant excepted.

Warren, for plaintiff in error.

*By the Court.*

Starnes, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] At the first term of the appeal, the defendant moved ' the Court to amend his plea, which motion the Court overruled, on the ground that the defendant had filed no plea before that time, as required by the Judiciary Act of 1799.

This motion was properly overruled, for the reason that the defendant had never filed any plea in the cause, to be amended.

The counsel for the defendant then moved the Court for leave to plead *de novo*to the action, which motion the Court refused.

The 5th Common Law rule of practice, which authorizes a defendant to make an amendment to his answer, is founded on the idea, that he appealed, and answered in writing, as required by the Judiciary Act of 1799.

We are not aware of any Statute, or rule of practice, which authorizes a party defendant who has filed no answer, to plead *de novo*on the appeal, as matter of right. This motion was therefore, rightly refused by the Court.

The counsel for the defendant then moved the Court to permit him to pay up the costs, open the default, and plead instanter to the merits of the action; which motion the Court overruled. In our judgment, the Court erred in overruling this motion. By the 37th Common Law rule of practice, the defendant is entitled to open the default on payment of costs, and to plead instanter to the merits of the action, and if tlm *46plaintiff is surprised by tlio plea, the cause shall be continued at the instance of the defendant. 2 Kelly, 473. The defendant, as it regards opening the default and pleading to the merits of the action, is certainly in no worse condition for that purpose when the case is on the appeal, than before an appeal has been entered. Let the judgment of the Court beloAY be reArersed on the last assignment of error.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertH. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  Robert H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert  H. Barghaus                         |
|   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | April 14,  2005                        |

 

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subjectto the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kelly KEAGHEY.

No. 2011-KO-0112.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Keaghey, Kelly; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 701664; to the *1009Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0989.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,687
<SECURITIES>                                     5,146
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                       442
<INVENTORY>                                      4,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,618
<PP&E>                                          23,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,886
<BONDS>                                          2,324
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,139
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,410
<SALES>                                         33,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,613
<CGS>                                           20,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   135
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,832
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,399
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,433
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,433
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        


</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00494

- CV

City of Alton, a Municipal Corporation v. Mutual Equity, LLP

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. CCD

- 0575

- D

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APP EALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
December 1 , 2022