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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
DECEMBER 31, 1996 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         76
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    96
<PP&E>                                             187
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (90)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               96
<BONDS>                                            109
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          28
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       262
<SALES>                                            633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   633
<CGS>                                              520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     49
<INCOME-TAX>                                        19
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 30
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        30
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,561
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                   90
<INVENTORY>                                    150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,695
<PP&E>                                         2,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,934
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       67
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,428
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,141
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               61
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,871)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (643)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,228)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.21)
        

</TABLE>
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arlow Antone Kay , 

Defendant.

No. CR16-08013-001-PCT-DJH

TEMPORARY DETENTION ORDER 

FOR INTAKE ASSESSMENT 

 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '3141 et seq. a 

detention hearing was held. Upon recommendation of Pretrial Services, the defendant is 

ordered detained pending an intake assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix, 

Arizona or other facility as designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for 

such placement, defendant shall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including 

pretrial residency at said facility, as conditions do exist which would reasonably assure 

the safety of others and the appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so 

qualify, the release conditions set by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be 

detained pending trial as there are no conditions or combination of conditions which 

would reasonably assure the safety of others or the appearance of the defendant. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

Case 3:16-cr-08013-DJH Document 12 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

facility will provide transportation from the Sandra Day O=Connor Courthouse for 

defendant. 

 If Defendant is accepted into a facility, successfully completes the program, and is 

otherwise in compliance with his pretrial release conditions, the Defendant may be 

transitioned into the community but not on the Navajo Nation absent further order of this 

Court. 

 Dated this 10th day of February, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cr-08013-DJH Document 12 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
                                      Office of Inspector General
                                      Office of Counsel to the Inspector General

                                                      Cohen Building - Room 5527
                                                     330 Independence Ave., S.W.
                                                          Washington, D.C. 20201

                                October 15, 2002

Todd J. Kerr
Senior Vice President of Audit and
  Compliance
LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.
103 Powell Court, Suite 200
Brentwood, TN 37027

         Re:    IRO Verification Review of Laboratory Claims

Dear Todd:

I am writing to confirm our recent conversations and emails regarding the
Independent Review Organization (IRO) review of LifePoint's laboratory claims
review. Section III.D of LifePoint's Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA), as
amended April 29, 2002, requires that LifePoint perform a claims review of
outpatient laboratory claims at four hospitals each year. An IRO must select a
random sample of a minimum of 10% of the items reviewed by LifePoint and
re-perform LifePoint's workplan steps.

In brief summary, you requested that the IRO review of the laboratory claims be
eliminated for several reasons: (1) the IRO found no exceptions in year one of
the CIA; (2) given the "no exceptions" findings, the significant costs outweigh
the benefits of the IRO review; and (3) LifePoint conducts a number of internal
reviews (detailed in your September 17, 2002 email) to ensure that billing for
laboratory services is proper.

In light of the above, we agree that the IRO review of the laboratory claims can
be eliminated for the remainder of the CIA. In replacement of this IRO review,
you agreed to submit as part of future annual reports summaries of the quarterly
self-audits and the audits conducted as part of the Internal Audit's annual
workplan. Please call me if you have any questions.


                                       Sincerely,

                                       /s/  Barbara A. Frederickson

                                       Barbara A. Frederickson
                                       Senior Counsel
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-15-00019-CV

_________________

IN RE BARNETT & GARCIA, PLLC, LAWRENCE FALLI, AND TRI ED 

DISTRIBUTION, INC.

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Barnett & Garcia, PLLC, Lawrence Falli, and Tri Ed Distribution, Inc. filed 

a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the judge of the County Court at 

Law No. 1 of Jefferson County, Texas, to withdraw orders that relators contend 

were made after the trial court lost plenary power over the case.

After careful review of the petition and the mandamus record, we conclude 

relators are not entitled to mandamus relief. The real parties in interest, Wave 

Solutions, LLC and Brandon Luquette, filed a motion for sanctions before the trial 

court signed an order of dismissal. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 
2

860, 863 (Tex. 2010) (“After a nonsuit, a trial court retains jurisdiction to address 

collateral matters, such as motions for sanctions, even when such motions are filed 

after the nonsuit, as well as jurisdiction over any remaining counterclaims.”); Scott 

& White Mem’l Hosp. v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. 1996) (holding 

that a trial court has authority to decide a motion for sanctions while it retains 

plenary power, even after a nonsuit is taken). The order of dismissal, which stated 

that the cause was dismissed on the plaintiff’s notice of non-suit without 

mentioning the opposing party’s motion for sanctions, did not dispose of the 

motion for sanctions. See Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 95-96 

(Tex. 2009); Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 840 (Tex. 2009). Relators have not 

shown that the trial court signed orders in the case after the expiration of its 

plenary power. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED. 

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 21, 2015

Opinion Delivered January 22, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
#### W. P. Wade *v.*James Williams.

Contract — Parol Agreement Binding.

W. a remote assignee of Wade, made a parol agreement that if a sale hond, taken by a sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment of Wade, was quashed, and Wjade was compelled to refund any part of same, that he (W.) would pay the same without suit to avoid costs and further litigation. Held, that the promise was founded upon a sufficient consideration, and binding upon W.

APPEAL PROM MABION CIRCUIT COURT.

October 14, 1870.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

Although Wade was not the immediate assignee of Williams, still he was invested with all the rights of Pobards to whom the note was assigned. And Williams was ultimately liable to him on the assignment, in case the note could not be collected by the use of legal diligence. Whilst presuming this legal diligence, Williams voluntarily promised that in case the sale bonds, taken by the sheriff in satisfaction of Wade’s judgment were quashed, and he was compelled to refund any part of the money received on the same, that he (Williams) would pay him the money without suit, as he did not wish to be put to costs about it. The bonds were quashed and Wade was compelled to refund a portion of the money collected. And this action is prosecuted to compel Williams to perform his said agreement. We hold that the promise was founded upon a sufficient consideration. Williams was both morally and legally bound to Wade on the assignment, he could dispense with the diligence required of Wade by the law if he chose, and he did so, as he said, to save costs. His promise doubtless lulled Wade into fancied security and prevented him from attaching the funds of H. P. Orowdus in the hands of the commissioner. Williams should not now be allowed to take advantage of Wade’s failure to do what he agreed he would not require him to do.

For these reasons the judgment of the court below, dismissing *303Wade’s petition, is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Harrison, for appellant.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                    SCOTSMAN HOLDINGS, INC.AND SUBSIDIARIES

               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Year Ended December 31,
                                         -------------------------------------------------
                                           1995      1996      1997      1998      1999
                                         --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
                                                      (Dollars in thousands)
<S>                                      <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Earnings:
 Earnings from continuing
  operations before income taxes
  and extraordinary item                 $ 7,422   $15,175   $ 9,965   $12,456   $ 32,020
 Fixed charges from below                 23,353    26,755    44,767    67,092     86,517
                                         -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
  Total earnings                         $30,775   $41,930   $54,732   $79,548   $118,537
                                         -------   -------   -------   -------   --------

Fixed Charges:
 Interest                                $22,485   $25,797   $43,611   $65,110   $ 83,875
 Interest component of rent expense:
  Total rent expense                     $ 2,605   $ 2,875   $ 3,468   $ 5,947   $  7,918
  Portion considered interest expense         33%       33%       33%       33%        33%
                                         -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
   Interest component                    $   868   $   958   $ 1,156   $ 1,982   $  2,639
                                         -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
   Total fixed charges                   $23,353   $26,755   $44,767   $67,092   $ 86,517
                                         -------   -------   -------   -------   --------

Earnings to Fixed Charges                   1.3x      1.6x      1.2x      1.2x       1.4x
                                         =======   =======   =======   =======   ========
</TABLE>

                                      82
#### John G. Smith *v.*William Smith.

Contracts — Payment in Fluctuating Commodity.

Entering into contract freely and voluntarily can not avoid same.

APPEAL PROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT.

September 16, 1870.

*Drane, for appellant.*

*Smith, for appellee.*

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge Peters :

Appellee had the unquestioned right to demand that the residue of the note unpaid should be paid in gold or silver. The treasury-notes, as we judicially know, were not at the time of par value with gold and silver; but their value was fluctuating, and like any other vendible commodity their value was conventional, or parties could negotiate for and deal in it, or pay and receive it in payment of debts at'such values as they might agree upon. And contracts in regard to them, fairly entered into and free from fraud, must be enforced. The contract between these parties, out of which appellant’s indebtedness grew and the notes were executed before the treasury notes had an existence. And having entered into the contract of which he now complains, freely and voluntarily, he has shown no sufficient legal reason for avoiding it.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
#### Commonwealth *v.*G. Coyle.

Indictment — Selling Lottery Tickets — Certainty.

The charge in the indictment is that the defendant “did unlawfully sell. . a lottery ticket, a writing purporting to entitle the holder to a prize to he drawn in a 'lotery in the State of Kentucky.” Held, That the allegations are too general and wholly fails to give the defendant notice with ■sufficient certainty of the particular offense, for which he was to he tried, so as to enable him to prepare his defense, nor would a judgment in the case he a bar to a future prosecution for the same offense.

*653APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT'.

January 9, 1872.

Bramblette, *Durrett & Briggs, for appellant.*

Bullitt, *for appellee.*

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Peters :

The charge in the indictment in this case is that the defendant ■“did unlawfully sell a lottery ticket, a writing purporting to entitle the holder to a prize to be drawn in a lottery in the State of Kentucky, contrary,” etc. This certainly is too general, and wholly fails to give the defendant notice with sufficient certainty of the particular offense, for which he was to be tried, nor would a judgment in the case be a bar to a future prosecution for the same offense. He might be prepared to show by proof that he did sell a ticket in a lottery authorized by law, and that he had a right to sell the ticket, but under this indictment appellant could show that he sold a ticket in another lottery, which he might also have been able to prove he had a right to sell if he had been apprised that he was to have been tried for that offense. The demurrer was, therefore, properly sustained and the judgment must be *affirmed.*
| Exhibit 32.2 |
|--------------|

| 1. | to the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  May 13, 2010 | /s/ Lonnie D. Schnell                |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Lonnie D. Schnell                                                                                               |
|                           | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer                                                             |
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 U.S.  Timberlands Klamath Falls,
LLC (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Thomas C. Ludlow, 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 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/ Thomas C. Ludlow

Thomas C. Ludlow
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH GONZALEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JANET DHILLON, Chair of the United 

States Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission,

Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-02111

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Plaintiff, ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, by and through her attorneys, Riley Safer Holmes 

& Cancila LLP, and Defendant JANET DHILLON, through her counsel, and for this Joint Status 

Report the Parties state as follows:

The Parties are in the process of completing written discovery. After briefing defendant’s 

motion to dismiss and consolidating a later-filed case, No. 20 C 7121 (N.D. Ill.), plaintiff filed 

the operative complaint on March 31, 2021, and defendant answered on April 9, 2021,. Plaintiff 

has propounded and Defendant has responded to a first set of discovery requests. Defendant has 

produced documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests except for ESI related to the 

communications/emails of the people involved in this case. Defendant has made an internal 

request for this ESI and will produce this information once available. COVID-19 and internal 

agency turnover has delayed Defendant’s ability to produce this ESI.

Defendant has propounded an initial set of discovery. Plaintiff is in the process of 

responding to this discovery. The Parties have met and conferred about this discovery since 

Plaintiff’s personal situation related to domestic violence has delayed her ability to respond. 

Since the last Joint Status Report, Plaintiff has been able to gather relevant documents to her case 

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 49 Filed: 08/12/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:450
2

and is in the process of responding to Defendant’s discovery requests and progress is being 

made.

At this time, the Parties have identified the following individuals most likely to be 

deposed in no particular order: Plaintiff Elizabeth Gonzalez, Tyrone Irvin, Patricia Jaramillo, 

Julianne Bowman, Kimberly Engram, and Jose Romo. These witnesses are represented by 

counsel for the Parties. In addition, defendant expects to depose several of plaintiff’s treaters 

that will be identified after reviewing plaintiff’s medical records.

The Parties have been working diligently to progress with fact discovery. Nevertheless, 

Plaintiff’s home situation and COVID-19 have caused delays outside of the parties’ control. 

And the parties have concurrently filed a joint motion to extend fact discovery.

Dated: August 12, 2021

s/ Brian O. Watson

Brian O. Watson

Matthew E. Lee

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 471-8700

bwatson@rshc-law.com

mlee@rshc-law.com

docketdept@rshc-law.com

Attorneys for Elizabeth Gonzalez

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr.

United States Attorney

By: s/ Valerie R. Raedy 

VALERIE R. RAEDY

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-8694

valerie.raedy@usdoj.gov

Attorney for the United States Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 49 Filed: 08/12/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:451