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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE
PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 1995
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,919,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,121,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,040,371
<PP&E>                                      53,145,814
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,551,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,348,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          552,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,795,720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,348,280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,307,165
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,463,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,843,256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honoratle Burl Brittaln 

County Auditor 

San Patrioio County 

Sinton, Telprs 

Dear Sir: 

0016 en4 alvllian 

requesting the Olintea question reads 

the County alCounty Judge, or 

zttn, a8 County 

arefully considered the question presentan4 Sail to Sio4 any etatute or other authority authorizing the payment OS the above motioned expenses by the county out of any oounty fun4 or iunde. 

It is well esteblished in this Stats that the Commissionera’ Court has only such authority as is expmssly' 
Sonomble Burl Brlttaln, Fags 2 

oonferred or necessarily laplied upon it by the statutea 

a54 Constitution of this State. 

Au offioer may not claim or reach any money withcut IA law authorizing him to do so, and clearly affixing 

the amount to wlnioh he 15 entitled. (Ter. Jur., Vol. 34, 

p. 5l.l; Duclos v. Harris County, 298 Y. W. 417; Binford v. 

Robinson, 244 S. yr’. 807) 

The Constitution fixes the compensation of eertaln officers, en4 authorizes the Leglalature to provide by 

law for the co;l3ensatlon of all other oftloere, serva&ta, 

agents en4 public oontraotora. Punwant to the authority 

thus conferred numerous statutes have been passe4 fixing 

the coapensction oi various olasses OS OfffOera. However, 

a8 above stated, we fail to fin4 any authority authorizing 

the payment of the above mentioned expanses out of county 

flUIds. 

Therefore, we respeotfally an&war the above stated question in the negative. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORXXT GlBXXAL OF TZ%AS 

BY Ardell Willlams 

A..~ ,.,~ Amia tant 

~_ -.*__..._,
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,717] 

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 31, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a United Auto Workers Local 902 Union representative on behalf of workers of Moyno, Inc., a Division of Robbins & Myers, Inc., Springfield, Ohio. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11869 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ELY WILLIAMS, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DDC-04-481 DECISION

On June 24, 2010, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence as follows: Count I: A commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of six (6) years, for placement in an appropriate correctional facility or program, for the offense of Criminal Endangerment, a Felony; and Count II: A commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of six (6) years, for placement in an appropriate correctional facility or program, for the offense of Theft, a Felony. Counts I and II shall run concurrently. The Court recommends the Department of Corrections provide the Defendant with any chemical dependency treatment programming available, including but not limited to, the Connections Corrections Program.

On November 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Jori Frakie. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence *106or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be waived.

Done in open Court this 4 th day of November, 2010.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
#### Beecker & Beecker against Vrooman.

in an for the price a chattel, the prove TM deceit in the sale, and njatthe^chattei and thus defeat ■the plaintiff’s wn=ouMnessitiie }y°aUpar«Sedn va?uT0he0míy ln°iñitigatioSaof damagos.,

IN ERROR, tp the court of common pleas of the county .©£ *Mamso.n*-s-*

This Was‘ an actionof assumpsit brought by *.F^rboman,,*in the - . . , . , r ' V . . court below, agamst the plain tins in error, to recover the price pf a'horsé and a mare sold by *Vrooman*to the plaintiffs . ' ■ *■■ J ■*F - ' lQ. who; pleaded the general issue, with notice of special maiter to b'e given in evidence. The plaintiff below having Proved the sale of the .mare to the defendants below, for the priceoff Strdollars, the cpunsel for, thé defeudaiits offered tp prove,. that.-at; the time, of; the sale the mare.was sick and diseased^ and the plaintiff,, well knowing this.fact, represented ■her to be sound,and ■healthy. This.testimony was objected to by. the plaintiff’s counselj and the defendants* counsel admittihg,. on being interrogated by the court,-that he was ribt prepared.to. prove that .the, defendants had entirely lost, the mare* but offered to prove that tiie mare was, of vgry .trifling value, and was'siek and diseased,, and that the -plaintiff''had defrauded the de?, fendants in the bargain.; the court rejected the evidence, and ruled, that evidence of- fraud was only admissible where it went to the entire .cause of action, and-could not be received in mitigation of damages, by showing; a partial loss. The jury, under the. direction of the Court,, found, a verdict for the .plaintiff; below-for-39 dollars and *27*cents,;.; and -a bill of exceptions ' having beep tendered bytlie defendants!,.it was removedinip. this court by Writ of error. .... ,

The case was submitted to the; court without argument.

Yak Ness, J.,

delivered the opinión' of the court. The defence, offered in th.e court below Wgs improperly excluded.. The defendant below apprised the plaintiff of-his intention to rely for his. defence,, at the trial,'upon, the ffaudy and the es— tablished rulé now appears to be,, that, in cases-like the present, fraud may be givep in evidencé as. a defence, and will be an answer to the whole demand, or in abatement of the damagés, ac- . cording to the circumstances of the case./ This is the true) aw *303well as a salutary rule, and well calculated to do final and compíete justice between the parties, most expeditiously and least expensively. *(Basten*v. *Butten,*7 *East,*480. n. *Lewis*v. Casgrave, 2 *Taunt.*2. *Fisher*v. *Samuda and another,*1 *Camp. N. P.*190. *Runyan*v. Nichols, 11 *Johns.*Rep. 548.) The judgment, must, therefore, be reversed, and a *venire de novo*issued in the court below. ' ' ' <

Judgment below reversed.,
CHARLES C. SANMANN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1331

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

Charles C. Sanmann, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF, and B.L. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
[918 NE2d 954, 890 NYS2d 440]

#### In the Matter of Thomas Gillen, Appellant, v Steven D. Conkling, as Treasurer of the County of Nassau, Respondent.

Decided October 27, 2009

*830APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Kenneth Cooperstein,*Centerport, for appellant.

*Loma B. Goodman, County Attorney,*Mineóla *(Gil Nahmias*and *Dennis J. Saffran*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Winston M. Talbert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Plains Exploration & Production Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



/s/ Winston M. TalbertName:

Winston M. TalbertTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


Date: April 29, 2013
The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DAVID SMAIL, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-486 DECISION

On May 3, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: A commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, for the offense of Theft, a Felony; Count II: A commitment to the Yellowstone County Detention Facility for the term of six (6) months, for the offense of Unsworn Falsification to Authorities, a Misdemeanor; and Count III: A commitment to the Yellowstone County Detention Facility for the term of six (6) months, for the offense of Unsworn Falsification to Authorities, a Misdemeanor. Counts I, II and III shall run concurrently with each other.

On November 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Jori Frakie. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he washed to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4 th day of November, 2010.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL  OFFICER(pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C.§1350))**

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), theundersigned, Gordon Link, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofTapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to hisknowledge, that:

(a)                                  theAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 27, 2006 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

(b)                                 theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 6, 2007
|            | /s/ GORDON LINK                                    |
|------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|       | Gordon Link                                        |
| ** ** | Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and will be retained by Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. Thiscertification “accompanies” the Form 10-K to which it relates, isnot deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference intoany filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after thedate of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing.

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas TATMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11091

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

Dianne Kathryn Jones, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*605Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Thomas Tatman on appeal from the revocation of his term of supervised release has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as is required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Tat-man has not responded to counsel’s motion.

Our independent review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
# Free Publications

All our publications are available online. Click on any title to read that publication on our website. You can download a PDF or order a print copy of some publications.

Age-Related Hearing Loss

Information and resources concerning age-related hearing loss (presbycusis) including: description, causes, prevention, questions to help determine if you need to have your hearing checked, hearing aid options, other treatments, and research.

Download PDFAdd to cart

American Sign Language

Information and resources concerning sign language, American Sign Language, comparisons between sign and spoken language, and language acquisition by deaf children.

Download PDFAdd to cart

Aphasia

Information and resources concerning aphasia including: description, causes, diagnosis, treatment, and research.

Download PDFAdd to cart

Apraxia of Speech

Information and resources concerning apraxia of speech including: description, types, causes, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and research.

Download PDFAdd to cart

Assistive Devices for People with Hearing, Voice, Speech, or Language Disorders

Information about different types of assistive devices, how they work, and ongoing NIDCD-funded research to improve their communication ability.

Download PDF[Web Only]

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast » 

## Your Cart

## Show publications related to:

Our publications are free. You may also duplicate or distribute them. For bulk orders, please contact the NIDCD Information Clearinghouse at:
nidcdinfo@nidcd.nih.gov
learn more about bulk orders

Unfortunately, we are unable to send publications out of the United States. However, all of the NIDCD's fact sheets and other publications are available online.

* Note: PDF files require a viewer such as the free Adobe Reader.
#### Samuels *v.*Langfeld Brothers & Company *et al.*

Under the facts in evidence, there was no abuse of discretion in granting an injunction and appointing a receiver.

June 11, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Injunction and receiver. Before Judge Lumpkin, Pulton county. January 27, 1894.

John C. Reed, Mord Foote, Jr., and Goodwin & Westmoreland, for plaintiff in error. N. J. & T. A. Hammond, Candler & Thomson and Marshall J. Clarice, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,029
<INVENTORY>                                      6,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,086
<PP&E>                                          10,476
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,058
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,292
<SALES>                                         41,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,650
<CGS>                                           17,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    23
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (347)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,258)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (908)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (908)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>