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


<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financ ial information extracted from the
consolidated finanial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,862,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,486,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,703,500
<PP&E>                                         732,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                (400,700)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,173,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,546,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,800
<PREFERRED>                                  2,731,000
<COMMON>                                        15,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,000,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,173,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,971,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,519,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,971,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,971,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,971,300)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.47)



</TABLE>
#### Walker, and Others *v.*Houlton and Another

Assumpsit by *JL.*against *B.*for work and labour and goods sold. Plea, a former *recovery.*Replication, *nvl tiel record.*On the trial, *B.*produced the record described in his, plea, which was of an action of assumpsit brought by him against *JL.*in which' non assumpsit was pleaded, with a notice of set-off for work and labour and goods sold to a larger amount, &c., and in which *B.*recovered.

*Held,*-that on this evidence the defendant was entitled, under the issue, to judgment. *Held,*also, that if the matters sued for by *A.*were not inquired into under the notice *of*set-off in the first suit, he might have replied that fact. ' ' .

*Monday, June*15.

ERROR to the *La Grange*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Assumpsit for work 'and labour and goods sold and delivered. ' *Houlton*and *Hughes*were the plaintiffs. Damage, 300 dollars. Plea, a former recovery in a Court of common pleas in- the state of *Ohio,*in a suit brought by the present defendants, *Walker*and others, agaipst the present plaintiffs. Replication, *nul tiel record.*

On the trial, the defendants gave in evidence a transcript of the record described in the plea. The suit was assumpsit on two promissory notes, and for goods sold and delivered'. Plea, non assumpsit, with a notice of set-off of a demand of 1,000 dollars for work and labour and goods sold and delivered. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs in that suit.

Upon an inspection of the record, the. Circuit Court gave judgment for the plaintiffs, *Houlton*and *Hughes.*

The pleadings before us present the single question, whether there was’ such a' record as the plea described? The defendants produced the'record. There was no material variance between it and that averred in the plea. It showed that claims for work and labour .and .for goods sold and delivered, greater in amount than those now sued for, were brought forward by *Houlton*and *Hughes*as a set-off in that suit; and it must be presumed, under the present issue, that those claims -are the same with those now sued for, and that they were then litigated and determined.

When a defendant pleads a formér recovery in a suit by the plaintiff, and' the latter wishes to show that the causes of action are not the same, he' may deny their identity by a *349replication. 3 Chitt. Pl. 928, *note.*—Seddon *et al.*v. *Tutop,*6 T. R. *607.*—Bagot v. Williams, 3 Barn. & Cress. 235.—*Snider et al.*v. *Croy,*2 Johns. Rep. 227. So, in the present case, if the matters sued for were not inquired into under the notice of set-off in the first suit, the plaintiffs might have replied that fact.

*H.*Cooper, for the plaintiffs.

*D. H. Colerick*and *W. H. Coombs,*for the defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the replication set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James C. Flores, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Plains Exploration & Production Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of PlainsExploration & Production Company; 

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this quarterly 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 we have:

 

a. designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; 

 

c. disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 

 

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 30, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

AG EQUIPMENT COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant - 

 Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

and

EDWARD T. KURTZ, in his capacity as

trustee of the Suzanne Ash Kurtz

Revocable Trust,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

INC., 

Defendant-Counter-Claimant - 

 Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

and

MARK HEIDENREITER,

Defendant. 

__________________________

AG EQUIPMENT COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant -

Appellant,

Nos. 09-5038 & 09-5044

(D.C. No. 4:07-CV-00556-CVE-PJC)

Appellate Case: 09-5044 Document: 01018468567 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Page: 1
2

v.

AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Counter-Claimant -

Appellee. 

No. 09-5118

ORDER

Before TACHA, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

These matters are before the court upon our careful review of the jurisdictional

issues presented. In short, we conclude the failure to set a specific amount in

prejudgment interest renders the underlying judgments non-final. That lack of finality, in

turn, is fatal to the continuation of these appeals as we lack jurisdiction. See Garcia v.

Burlington Northern R. Co., 818 F.3d 713, 721 (10 Cir. 1987)(noting prejudgment th

interest “must be a part of the primary damage relief” and “is not a collateral issue”). We

note in this regard there is no indication the failure to fix an amount certain was a purely

clerical error. See Pratt v. Petroleum Prod. Mgt. Inc., 920 F.3d 651, 656 (10 Cir. 1990). th

The district court is in the best position to address this prejudgment interest issue,

and may do so on the record currently available. In addition, we note that because no

final judgment has entered, the time for the parties to file motions under Fed. R. Civ. P.

Appellate Case: 09-5044 Document: 01018468567 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Page: 2
3

59(e) has not technically begun. 

The calendar notice setting these cases for oral argument on September 20, 2010 is

vacated. We order these appeals dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 09-5044 Document: 01018468567 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Page: 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                       825
<INVENTORY>                                      4,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,019
<PP&E>                                          11,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,918
<SALES>                                         33,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,115
<CGS>                                           14,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (857)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    772
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                772
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       772
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
1 min read

# Training Flight

### NASA

May 05, 2011

Image Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

European Space Agency astronaut Roberto Vittori, a member of the STS-134 crew, is pictured in the rear station of a NASA T-38 trainer jet at Ellington Field near NASA’s Johnson Space Center. During the 14-day mission, Endeavour and the STS-134 crew will deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and spare parts including two S-band communications antennas and a high-pressure gas tank.*Image Credit: NASA/David DeHoyos*
# Sitemap

## June 30, 2006

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2006
- 06
- June 30, 2006

            - Cassini Significant Events 06/20/06 – 06/28/06
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132476 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132476 COA: 260903 Kent CC: 04-004523-FC MELVIN WILLIAM SPENCER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

ROLAND GATHRIGHT,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 118 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Unpublished Memorandum and Order

of the Superior Court at No. 2065 EDA

2012 filed February 12, 2014, affirming

the Order of the Philadelphia Court of

Common Pleas at No.

CP-51-CR-0001034-2009 filed June 20,

2012

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

hereby GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is

REMANDED for consideration by the trial court consistent with Commonwealth v.

Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2015) (holding “a defendant’s innocence claim

must be at least plausible to demonstrate, in and of itself, a fair and just reason for

presentence withdrawal of a plea” and “the proper inquiry on consideration of such a

withdrawal motion is whether the accused has made some colorable demonstration,

under the circumstances, such that permitting withdrawal of the plea would promote

fairness and justice”). Jurisdiction relinquished.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      342,509
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               144,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            525,165
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,023,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,080,352
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 70
<COMMON>                                    1,034
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,942,540
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,023,996
<SALES>                                     1,763,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,763,459
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,329,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          124,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             327,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                125,576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         202,016
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   (543,870)
<NET-INCOME>                                (341,854)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.04)



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christian Johannes LACKNER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10605.

D.C. No. CR-02-00379-MMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Susan Knight, AUSA, USSF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christian Johannes Lackner, pro se, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Lackner’s request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM **

Christian Johannes Lackner appeals pro se the district court’s affirmance of his petty offense conviction and $75 fine, after trial before a magistrate judge, for failure to stop his bicycle at a stop sign in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 1004.12. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *United States v. Davidson,*246 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir.2001), and we vacate and remand.

The district court properly rejected the magistrate judge’s interpretation of the California Vehicle Code, which is incorporated by reference in the federal regulation, because the relevant provision of the Code does not require a driver or cyclist to come to a complete stop before reaching a posted stop sign when there is no limit or stop line. *See*Cal. Veh.Code § 22450(a) (“If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.”). There is no basis in the plain language of the statute, however, for the district court’s ruling that the statute would nonetheless prohibit a driver who had not yet reached the intersection from making a U-turn without stopping. We remand because there was conflicting testimony as to whether Lackner entered the intersection before making a U-turn, and the magistrate judge made no finding on this issue. *See United States v. Prieto*
      *825
      *Villa,*910 F.2d 601, 610 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that remand to district court is appropriate if there are no essential factual findings on which to base appellate review).

VACATED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31

                           CRUSADE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, Steve McKerihan, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K
containing  distribution  or  servicing  reports  filed in  respect  of  periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Crusade Global Trust No.1
of 1999;

2.  Based on my knowledge, the  information in these reports,  taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and  servicing,  or
similar,  agreements,  for  inclusion  in these  reports  is  included  in these
reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under
the pooling and  servicing,  or similar,  agreements and based upon my knowledge
and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,  and except as
disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that
agreement; and

5.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum  servicing  standards based upon the report provided
by an independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program for  Mortgage  Bankers or similar
procedure,  as set forth in the pooling and servicing,  or similar,  agreements,
that is included in these reports.

In giving the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:_

Perpetual Trustees Consolidated Limited


                                    /S/  S.  McKERIHAN
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    S.  McKerihan
                                    CFO - Crusade Management Limited
                                    Date:  March 25, 2004
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 Quarterly Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry A. Goldstone, President and Chief Operating 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 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Larry A. Goldstone               
|Larry A. Goldstone                   
|President and Chief Operating Officer
|November 8, 2007
# Sitemap

## November 02, 2015

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2015
- 11
- November 02, 2015

            - NASA Hosts Media Day Featuring OLYMPEX Precipitation Field Campaign
            - NASA, Woods Hole Host Media Day Featuring Air-Sea Plankton Study
            - NASA Armstrong 2015 Achievements
            - Agricultural Fires Continue in China
            - White House, NASA Administrator Statements on 15 Years of Human Habitation Aboard International Space Station
            - Looking Back: International Space Station at the Start of Expedition 1
            - Dunelands of Titan
            - SDO Sees Active Solar Regions Blossoming
            - NASA to Announce New Findings on Fate of Mars’ Atmosphere
            - Sol 1153-1154: Driving Around East Glacier