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


<ARTICLE>                     5
                          
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                               8,558
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      138,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                         7,377
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   149,551
<PP&E>                                             138,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                     102,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     322,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              128,684
<BONDS>                                            116,237
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            16,780
<OTHER-SE>                                          60,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       322,950
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   252,511
<CGS>                                              215,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      247,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      2,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,092
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    930
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           846
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        



</TABLE>
BOSTON FINANCIAL TAX CREDIT FUND VII, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                                 EXHIBIT [32.1]

                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 Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund VII
(the "Fund") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Principal, hereby certifies 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 Fund.



                                             /s/ Jenny Netzer
                                             Jenny Netzer
                                             Executive Vice President
                                             MMA Financial, LLC

                                             Date:  August 14, 2003










A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### MICHAEL EDWARDS v. JAMES E. STERNBERG.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7616

JEROME ALEXANDER RIDDICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN OF BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-465-AM) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Alexander Riddick, Appellant Pro Se. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 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 October 9, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on October 13, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Alexander Riddick appeals the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Riddick v. Warden of Brunswick Correctional Ctr , No. CA-98-465-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 13, 1998). * 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
#### In the Matter of Michael J. Marsala, Petitioner, v New York State and Local Employees' Retirement Systems et al., Respondents.

[788 NYS2d 517]

*985Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a police officer, filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits based upon a knee injury which occurred when he was attempting a running dismount from a bicycle during a basic bicycle patrol training course. Petitioner’s initial application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied. After a hearing, a Hearing Officer denied the application on the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Respondent Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

It is well settled that “an incident does not qualify as an accident justifying the award of accidental disability retirement benefits where the injury results from an expected or foreseeable event arising during the performance of routine employment duties” *(Matter of O'Brien v Hevesi,*12 AD3d 895, 896 [2004]; *see Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y.,*57 NY2d 1010, 1012 [1982]). At the time of his injury, petitioner was participating in a bicycle training exercise as part of his training for his plain-clothed detail assignment. During the training session, petitioner performed two low-speed dismounts and then was instructed to attempt the running dismount, which involves simultaneously dismounting a moving bicycle and running in order to apprehend a fleeing suspect. Inasmuch as the injury occurred during training for routine duties commensurate with his employment, substantial evidence supports the determination denying petitioner’s application and it will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., supra*at 1012; *Matter of Mirrer v Hevesi,*4 AD3d 722, 723 [2004]; *Matter of Tucker v McCall,*262 AD2d 916, 917 [1999]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                           PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Quovadx, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to
the best of their knowledge and belief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63,
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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


The foregoing Certification is incorporated solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended
to be used for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Quovadx, Inc. and will be retained
by Quovadx, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

QUOVADX, INC.


/s/  LORINE R. SWEENEY
-------------------------------------------
Lorine R. Sweeney
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/  GARY T. SCHERPING
-------------------------------------------
Gary T. Scherping
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JASON GUERRA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 474 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of March, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HUSNI ABDILAZIZ BARAKAT.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 8, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TERRY L. GIBBS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration,

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 10-6108

(D.C. No. 5:05-CV-01189-M)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, LUCERO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

On April 21, 2010, the district court entered an order regarding Plaintiff Terry

Gibbs’ motion to clarify. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appeals. We dismiss the

appeal. The district court order appealed is interlocutory.

“Federal appellate jurisdiction generally depends on the existence of a

decision by the District Court that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves

nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ ” Federal Deposit Insurance

Corp. v. McGlamery, 74 F.3d 218, 221 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Coopers &

Lybrand v. Liversay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978)). In Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345

(2006), the Supreme Court stressed that very few types of interlocutory orders can

Appellate Case: 10-6108 Document: 01018437045 Date Filed: 06/08/2010 Page: 1 
2

qualify as immediately appealable collateral orders. The “conditions are ‘stringent,’

and unless they are kept so, the underlying doctrine will overpower the substantial

finality interests [28 U.S.C.] § 1291 is meant to further.” Id. at 349.

Upon review, the court finds that the April 21, 2010 Order appealed by

Plaintiff does not constitute a final or immediately appealable decision under § 1291

or under any recognized exception to the final judgment rule. Following entry of an

order granting Defendant’s motion to reopen, Plaintiff’s social security case was

referred to a magistrate judge for findings of fact and recommendations. Plaintiff’s

case is proceeding before the district court. The magistrate judge has not issued

recommendations, and the district judge has not issued a final judgment. 

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-6108 Document: 01018437045 Date Filed: 06/08/2010 Page: 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

COMPASS BANK,

 Appellant,

v.

VICTOR NACIM AND

RACHEL NACIM,

 Appellees. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00318-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2009-2946)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that 

Appellees recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the 

judgment and all costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This 

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, Rodriguez, J., and Chew, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Chew, C.J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 11.0

                         Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
                       Computation of Net Loss Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Quarter            Quarter          Nine Months         Nine Months
                                             ending             ending            ending              ending
                                            09/30/97           09/30/96          09/30/97            09/30/96
                                           -----------       -----------       ------------       ------------

<S>                                          <C>               <C>                <C>                <C>      
Weighted average common shares
     outstanding . . . . . . . . . . .       7,200,704         6,867,078          7,092,915          4,559,914

Assumed conversion of preferred stock
     from original date of issuance,
     pursuant to staff policy. . . . .              --                --                 --            874,798

                                           -----------       -----------       ------------       ------------
     Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       7,200,704         6,867,078          7,092,915          5,434,711

     Net loss. . . . . . . . . . . . .     $(3,908,893)      $(3,046,867)      $(10,043,569)      $(11,202,964)
                                           ===========       ===========       ============       ============

     Net loss per share. . . . . . . .     $     (0.54)      $     (0.44)      $      (1.42)      $      (2.06)
                                           ===========       ===========       ============       ============ 
</TABLE>
|               | **Exhibit 4.2** |
|--------------------|-----------------|
|               |            |
| Certificate Number | SHARES          |
| ___                | ___             |
|               |            |

 

 

**SERIES III PREFERRED STOCK, PAR VALUE $1.00**

 

**Cargo Connections Logistics Holding Inc.**

**Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Florida**

 

 

THIS            CERTIFIES THAT

 

______________

 

[SPECIMEN]

 

is            the registered owner of _____________ shares of fully paid and non-assessable Series            III Preferred Stock, par value $1.00 per share, issued by:

 

**Cargo Connection Logistics Holding, Inc.**

 

(The            “Corporation”) transferable upon the books of said Corporation by the named            holder(s) hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon the surrender of this            certificate properly endorsed at the office of the Corporation. Each share hereof may            be exchanged for such number of shares of the Corporation’s Common Stock, par            value $1.00 as determined pursuant to the Articles of Amendment to Articles of            Incorporation to filed by the Corporation with the Secretary of State of the State of            Florida on September 15, 2003 as well as the Resolution of the Board of Directors of            the company designating that ________ shares of the Corporation’s Series III            Preferred Stock that the rights, preferences, and privileges of the Series III            Preferred Stock are relative to those of the Series IV Preferred Stock par value $1.00,            designated to Triple Crown Consulting, Inc. in the Articles of Amendment set forth            above (“Designation”). The holder(s) hereof have certain dividend,            liquidation preference, redemption, voting, approval and other rights with respect to            the shares represented hereby as set forth in the Designation. A copy of the            Designation is available for inspection by the holder(s) at the offices of the            Corporation.

 
| IN WITNESS the seal of the Corporation and the true                        signatures of its duly authorized officers are set forth below. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Dated:

 

 

 
|                       |   |   |                                   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |   |                                        |
| Jesse Dobrinsky, President |   |   | Scott Goodman, Chief Financial Officer |
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

April 5, 2022
Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Arianespace/
Northrop Grumman JWST Reception on April 5, 2022

On April 5, 2022, the Arianespace together with Northrop Grumman, will host a reception at
Crystal Room at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs, Colorado, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m. The event will provide a forum for informal discussion on satellite technology and
challenges with attendees of the 37" Space Symposium.

Approximately 70 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of
views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local
government officials, representatives from industry, academia, media, employees of Federal
agencies, and foreign government officials. The estimated cost of the event, including all
food and beverages, is $150 per person. Arianespace is in control of the organizing, planning
and invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to
exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the
requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the
event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and
views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees who do
not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests of the sponsor may accept an
invitation for free attendance for themselves and a guest to the event. In those circumstances,
I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the individual may
be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their duties. However,
NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under

Executive Order 13989, may only attend the event if they reimburse the sponsor the value of
the event.

Additionally, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting
the interests of the Arianespace/Northrop Grumman, such as procurement duties, program
management, or negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate
determination from their loca|-gthics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.

Adam F. Greenstone
#### Lawrence Kaufman, Appellant, v Steven C. Kunis et al., Respondents.

[787 NYS2d 667]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), dated April 23, 2003, which, inter alia, denied his motion for leave to renew those branches of his prior motion which were for leave to amend the complaint to assert new causes of action against the defendants Kenneth Bergstol and Patrick Farms, LLC, and for summary judgment on his cause of action alleging breach of contract insofar as asserted against the defendants Steven C. Kunis, Paul Adler, Century 21 Rand, Prudential Rand, and Kunis-Adler Associates.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants Steven C. Kunis, Paul Adler, Century 21 Rand, Prudential Rand, Kenneth Bergstol, and Patrick Farms, LLC, appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew since he did not offer a reasonable justification for not presenting the additional facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *Gallagher v Daniella's Rest.,*6 AD3d 659 [2004]; *Albanese v Hametz,*4 AD3d 379, 380 [2004]; *LaRosa v Trapani,*271 AD2d 506 [2000]; *McNeill v Sandiford,*270 AD2d 467 [2000]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the new facts would have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *Kraeling v Leading Edge Elec.,*2 AD3d 789, 791; *Suffolk & Nassau Amusement Co. v Wurlitzer Co.,*24 AD2d 893, 894 [1965]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.