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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
HORIZONTAL VENTURES, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE INTERIM YEAR TO DATE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         838,547
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                    74,092
<INVENTORY>                                      3,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               854,482
<PP&E>                                       8,572,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                 824,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,927,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,443
<BONDS>                                         52,283
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,672,519
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,872,349)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,927,896
<SALES>                                        129,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,852
<CGS>                                          119,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,270,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,188,449)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,188,449)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,188,449)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.76)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.1


**SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATIONS**




The
      undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medis
      Technologies Ltd. (the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Registrant.






Dated:
                March 15, 2007/s/
                Robert
                K. Lifton
              Robert
                K. LiftonChairman
                and Chief Executive Officer






/s/
                Israel Fisher
              Israel
                FisherSenior
                Vice President-Finance and
              Chief
                Financial Officer
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-30508

Summary Calendar

_____________________

EDWARD R. GROSS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOGO WEST, Secretary, United States Department of the Army,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(D.C. No. 97-CV-3237-C)

_______________________________________________________

March 1, 2000

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Gross appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a writ of

mandamus directing the Secretary of the Army to retroactively grant an increase in his

service rating. We affirm.

The district court concluded that Gross could not demonstrate a clear right to the

relief requested, which is a rating of GS-11 retroactive to the date of initial hiring,

because the position he accepted with the Corps of Engineers was only offered to

candidates with GS-5 or GS-7 ratings. The district court’s conclusion is supported by

evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
2

The district court also concluded that Gross failed to demonstrate the absence of

another adequate remedy because Gross could have appealed his rating as soon as it was

made. Gross testified that he was dissatisfied with his rating from the beginning of his

employment, therefore the dismissal of his grievance as untimely was not erroneous. The

district court concluded that the Corps was not equitably estopped from asserting the

limitation preclusion because Gross did not show that the Corps purposefully

misrepresented material facts. These conclusions are supported by evidence and are not

clearly erroneous.

In addition to the grounds cited by the district court, Appellee argues that the Civil

Service Reform Act provides the exclusive remedy for Gross and the exclusivity of this

remedy precludes Mandamus. The CSRA provides the exclusive remedy for civil service

employees seeking ratings changes, which precludes mandamus relief, Towers v. Horner,

791 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1986), therefore mandamus was properly denied.

Because the findings of the district court are supported by evidence and the CSRA

precludes mandamus relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the

writ of mandamus.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No's 333-73616 and 333-106136) and on Form S-8
(File No's. 333-39802, 333-57536 and 333-102887) of Handspring, Inc. of our
report dated July 21, 2003, except as to Notes 3(i) and 7, as to which the date
is September 22, 2003, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.





/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
September 25, 2003
EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                              --------------------

NetNation  Communications  Inc.,  a  company  incorporated under the laws of the
Province  of  British Columbia, Canada, is wholly owned subsidiary of NetNation.

NetNation  Communications  (USA)  Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of
the  State  of  Delaware,  is  wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  NetNation.

DomainPeople  Inc.,  a  company  incorporated  under  the  laws  of the State of
Delaware,  is  wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  NetNation.


<PAGE>
#### Merrill Everett FIELDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-7440.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2007.

Decided: Dec. 21, 2007.

Merrill Everett Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*555Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Merrill Everett Fields seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 17, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on September 24, 2007. Because Fields failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00787-CV

Gilbert & Maxwell, PLLC; Keith Gilbert and William L. Maxwell, Appellants

v.

Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN200967, HONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I concur in the judgment only.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Filed: December 19, 2008
10420.

#### Kelly *v.*Georgia Railway & Power Company.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Action for damages; from Fulton superior court —Judge George L. Bell. February 4, 1919.

*Lowndes Calhoun,*for plaintiff.

*Colquitt & Conyers,*for defendant.

Stephens, J.

This court having held that the bill of exceptions in' this case duly assigned error upon a final judgment, and that the trial judge had erred in sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the petition upon the ground of misjoinder of actions' and parties (24 *Ga. App.*439, 101 S. E. 401), and the Supreme Court on certiorari having reversed the judgment of this court, holding only that the bill of exceptions was premature and that this court was without jurisdiction on such writ of error to decide the merits of the demurrer *(Georgia Railway & Power Co.*v. *Kelley,*150 *Ga.*698, 105 S. E. 300), the judgment of reversal originally rendered by this court must be vacated, and the writ of error dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., eoneur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2069 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2069

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Salaries and 
                     Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Salaries and 
                     Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 
              THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, SALARIES 
              AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

     Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Executive Office of the 
President, Office of Management and Budget, Salaries and Expenses for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $102,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Diaz, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 51]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered May 17, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

To the extent there was any error in the court’s refusal to dismiss a depraved indifference murder count *(see People v Suarez,*6 NY3d 202 [2005]), there is no basis for reversal because the jury only convicted defendant of intentional murder *(see People v Griffin,*28 AD3d 578, 579 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 789 [2006]; *see also People v Brown,*83 NY2d 791, 794 [1994]). Although defendant nevertheless claims prejudice, there is no support for his argument that the submission of the depraved indifference count adversely affected his counsel’s summation. Counsel argued in summation that the evidence failed to establish his identity as the person who killed the victim, and argued, *227alternatively, that had he been the killer he would have been unable to form homicidal intent because of his drug intoxication. The decision to employ alternative defenses, and the amount of time to spend on each of these defenses, were matters of counsel’s choice, and there is no indication that the presence of the depraved indifference count affected either of these choices.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence three photographs of the victim’s body, which, notwithstanding their gruesome aspects, tended to prove defendant’s homicidal intent *(see People v Wood,*79 NY2d 958, 960 [1992]; *People v Alvarez,*3 AD3d 456, 457 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 761 [2004]) and also corroborated the testimony of the witnesses to whom defendant had shown the deceased’s body *(see People v Byrd,*303 AD2d 184 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 641 [2003]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,574
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                       235
<INVENTORY>                                      9,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,102
<PP&E>                                          13,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,244
<BONDS>                                          5,197
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            77
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,417
<SALES>                                         40,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,454
<CGS>                                           24,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,276
<INCOME-TAX>                                       269
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,007
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Harold Milton, Petitioner, v Linda Joyce, Director, New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, et al., Respondents.

[971 NYS2d 711]—

*1139Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [William P Polito, J.], entered July 3, 2012) to review a determination of respondents. The determination denied petitioner’s request that a report maintained in the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, indicating petitioner for maltreatment, be amended to unfounded.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner, an employee of respondent New York State Office of Children and Family Services, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination denying his request to amend to unfounded an indicated report of child abuse and to seal that amended report. The report was based on petitioner’s physical altercation with a 16-year-old resident at a secure residential facility. We reject petitioner’s contention that the determination denying his request, made after a fair hearing, is not supported by substantial evidence. “At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child [abuse or] maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence^ and o]ur review ... is limited to whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record on the petitioner[’s] application for expungement” *(Matter of Mangus v Niagara County Dept, of Social Servs.,*68 AD3d 1774, 1774-1775 [2009], *lv denied*15 NY3d 705 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Saporito v Carrion,*66 AD3d 912, 912 [2009]). We conclude based on this record that the determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see*Social Services Law § 422 [8] [c] [ii]; *see also*former § 412-a [1] [a] [i]; former 18 NYCRR 433.2). We reject petitioner’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the fair hearing *(see generally Matter of Mangus,*68 AD3d at 1774; *Matter of Abramson v New York State Dept, of Motor Vehs.,*302 AD2d 885, 886 [2003]). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v San Antonio Russell, Jr., Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 832]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 15, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant as a juvenile offender upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him as a juvenile offender upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid, and he challenges the severity of the sentence. Although we agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the perfunctory inquiry made by County Court was “insufficient to establish that the court ‘engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” *(People v Brown,*296 AD2d 860, 860 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 767 [2002]; *see People v*
      *1321
      *Hamilton,*49 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2008]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Fahey, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Allseen Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 24, 2014, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), AllSeen Alliance, Inc. 
(``AllSeen Alliance'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Sony Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; Microfactory, Inc., 
Louisville, KY; Innopia Technologies, Inc., Seongnam, Gyeonggi, 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Smartlabs, Inc., Irvine, CA; Devon alli, Atlanta, 
GA; M2Communicaton, Inc., Taiwan, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; ADT 
Security Services, Boca Raton, FL; MobilityLab LLC, Moscow, RUSSIA; 
Organic Response Pty Ltd., Richmond, Victoria, AUSTRALIA; Quanta 
Computer Inc., Kuei Shan, Tao Yuan, TAIWAN; NETGEAR, Inc., San Jose, 
CA; Things.Expert LLC, Doral, FL; dog hunter LLC, Boston, MA; Shenzhen 
Fenglian Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; 
Verisign, Inc., Reston, VA; ForgeRock Inc., San Francisco, CA; Lenovo 
(Bejing), Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Resin, Inc., San 
Francisco, CA; and Inteno Broadband Technology AB, Hagersten, SWEDEN, 
have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and AllSeen Alliance intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 29, 2014, AllSeen Alliance filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12223).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 2, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 30, 2014 (79 FR 58805).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-30040 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P