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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS. CERTAIN INFORMATION HAS BEEN RESTATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITEM
601(c)(2)(iii) OF REGULATION S-K, AS DESCRIBED IN FOOTNOTE 1 BELOW.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,017)<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     30,619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,262
<PP&E>                                          11,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,424
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,453
<SALES>                                        125,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,170
<CGS>                                           97,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (6)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,408)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,012
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .92<F1>
<FN>
<F1>ALLOWANCES AND EARNINGS PER SHARE, BOTH ON A PRIMARY AND DILUTED BASIS, HAS
BEEN AMENDED TO CORRECT A DELETION ERROR.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Van Valkinburgh *against*Watson and Watson.

A parent is bound to provide his infant children with necessaries, and if he neglect to do so, a third person may supply them, and charge the pa5rent with the amount.

But such third •person must take notice of what is neeessa ry for the infant, according to his situation in life, and where the", infant lives with bis parent, and is provided for by hi,ro, a per son furnishing necessaries cannot charge the parent.

, IN ERROR, on *certio.rari*to a- justice’s'courts: • .

The defendants in error brought,an action1 in the coui't below against the plaintiff'ih error, for necessaries furnished by them, to his" infant son. On the trial it appeared that the son-of the-defendant below came to1 the store of- the plaintiffs below, and purchased a coat lor himself; but there was no evidence that it was done with his father’s consent. ; The defendant proved that? his son lived in his family, and was-comfortably and. decentlyelóthéd, according to his circumstances. A. verdict and judgment wpre given for the plaintiffs in the. court below.- :

Per *Curiam.*

-A.parent is- under a natural .obligation- to furnish necessaries for his infant children; and if-the parent "negleet that duty, any other person who ^supplies such nebessaries is deemed to have conferred a benefit on the delinquent parent, for which the law raises an implied' promise to pay; on the part of the parent. But what is actually necessary will depend on - the precise situation- of the infant, and- which the party .giving'1 the-credit must be acquainted with; at his peril. *(Simpson*v. *Robertson,*1 *Esp.*Rep. 17., *Ford*v. *Fothergill, Id.*211.) In the ease of *Bainbridge v. Pickering, (2Wm. Black. Rep.*1325.,) *Gould, J.*says, with great propriety, *“*No man shall take upoti him to dictate to a parent w-hat clothing the child shall wear, at what time they shall1 be purchased; or of whom; all. that must be leftto the discretion-of the father or mother,” Where the infant is *sub potestate parentis,-*there -must be a clear and palpable omission of duty, in that respect, on the part of the parent, in order to authorize any other person to act for, and charge the1 expense to, the parent. In' this case, there is no ground to charge the father with any neglect of duty, in providing necessaries for his child, and the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

 

•  Form S-8(No. 333-05561) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan and the 1994Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;

 

•  Form S-8(No. 333-75551) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance IncentivePlan and the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;

 

•  Form S-8(No. 333-52008) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance IncentivePlan and the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;

 

•  Form S-8(No. 333-73470) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance IncentivePlan and the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc;

 

• Form S-8(No. 333-120081) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan,the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, and the 2004Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan of Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc;

 

•  Form S-3(No. 333-82810) and related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of1,500,000 shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.

 

•  Form S-3(No. 333-112774) pertaining to the registration of 500,000 shares ofcommon stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.; and

 

•  Form S-3(No. 333-107817) and related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of6,500,000 shares of common stock and 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock ofNaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.

 

of our report datedFebruary 27, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of TapestryPharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.) included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 28, 2005.

 
|   |   | /s/ Ernst & Young,  LLP |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   |                        |

 

Denver, ColoradoFebruary 22, 2006

 

----
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50240 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
OSMAN MOLINA

- RAMOS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:16

- CR

- 945

- 1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Osman Molina

Ramos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Molina

- Ramos h a s not filed a resp onse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 26, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50240 Document: 00514401717 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2018No. 17

- 50240

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave
to withdra w is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-50240 Document: 00514401717 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2018
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Written Statement of Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Garrett E. PierceGarrett E. PierceVice Chairman and Chief Financial OfficerApril 25, 2008
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 96-30452 Summary Calendar

_______________________ CHARLES ERNEST VINCENT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JACK STEVENSON, Sheriff, St. Bernard Parish; FORREST BETHANY, Warden, St. Bernard Parish Prison;

SGT SHOGAN, Head of Medical, Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-3066 J)

______________________________________________________________________________ January 13, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Charles Ernest Vincent, Louisiana prisoner
#109156, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §

1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).
Vincent argues that the defendants violated his constit utional rights by delaying medical treatment after he reinjured his right
leg while getting out of the shower, that the def endants did not2

take him to his medical appointments at Charity Hospital, that the

defendants assigned him to an upper bunk without a ladder, and that the defendants did not provide hand rails or adequate mats in the shower area of the prison. In the district court, Vincent sought
only inju nctive relief requiring the defendants to provide any

necessary medical treatment. While his action was pending, Vincent

was transferred from St. Bernard Parish Prison to Hunt Correctional

Center. Vincent’s transfer to another prison rendered his claim
for injunctive relief against the defendants moot. See Cooper v.
Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex ., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingl y, the district court’s dismissal of Vincent’s § 1983

action is affirmed bec ause his action is now moot. S ee United

States v. McSween , 53 F.3d 584, 687 n.3 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , ____ U.S. ____, 116 S. Ct. 199 (1995).

AFFIRMED .
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, George
Ecker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Octus Inc.  for the year ending December 31,
2008  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Octus Inc. of
Nevada.




Date:
      April 15, 2009
                        
                        
                        /s/
      George EckerGeorge
      Ecker
                          Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

J. WINDSOR, MD; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15764

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00533

- MCE

- KJN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit

Judges.

Rodney Jerome Womack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical need s . We have juri sdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 30 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15764

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Womack

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his ankle pain. See id. 1057

- 60 (a prison official is

deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excess ive risk

to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does

not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Peralta v. Dillard , 744 F.3d 1076,

1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not

c onstitute deliberate indifference) ; Jett v. Penner , 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir.

2006) (delays must result in substantial harm to constitute deliberate indifference)

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the ope ning brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,332,000 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,668,000 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   815,000 
<INVENTORY>                                 33,303,000 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            59,615,000 
<PP&E>                                      22,263,000 
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,273,000 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,279,000 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,499,000 
<BONDS>                                      3,984,000 
<COMMON>                                        14,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                  60,450,000 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,279,000 
<SALES>                                     24,026,000 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,026,000 
<CGS>                                       14,501,000 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,479,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,000 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               176,000 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             121,000 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,120,000 
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,261,000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,859,000 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,859,000 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
# NGA Pathfinder Archive

          -  Home 
          - About
          - History
          -               NGA Pathfinder Archive            

Pathfinder magazine is the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s unclassified flagship publication for command information. It is produced by the agency for the agency and provides the workforce with unique and useful information about NGA, the U.S. Intelligence Community, Department of Defense, Congress and partners in industry and academia. Pathfinder’s coverage includes operations, equipment, education and training, entertainment, and policy, and includes human-interest articles and dynamic photography that interest potential employees, families and retirees.

The last issue of Pathfinder magazine was published in 2017.

# Pathfinder

          -  Volume 15, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 14, Issue 4Read 
          -  Volume 14, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 14, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 14, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 13, Issue 4Read 
          -  Volume 13, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 13, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 13, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 12, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 12, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 12, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 11, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 11, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 11, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 10, Issue 6Read 
          -  Volume 10, Issue 5Read 
          -  Volume 10, Issue 4Read 
          -  Volume 10, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 10, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 10, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 9, Issue 6Read 
          -  Volume 9, Issue 5Read 
          -  Volume 9, Issue 4Read 
          -  Volume 9, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 9, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 9, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 8, Issue 6Read 
          -  Volume 8, Issue 5Read 
          -  Volume 8, Issue 4Read 
          -  Volume 8, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 8, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 8, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 7, Issue 6Read 
          -  Volume 7, Issue 5Read 
          -  Volume 7, Issue 4Read 
          -  Volume 7, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 7, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 7, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 6, Issue 6Read 
          -  Volume 6, Issue 5Read 
          -  Volume 6, Issue 4Read 
          -  Volume 6, Issue 3Read 
          -  Volume 6, Issue 2Read 
          -  Volume 6, Issue 1Read 
          -  Volume 5, Issue 6Read 
          -  Volume 5, Issue 5Read 
          -  Volume 5, Issue 4Read
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rashard McGowan, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 147]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*851The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of attempted assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Kolupa,*13 NY3d 786 [2009]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict as to attempted assault in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the challenged remarks were fairly responsive to the arguments and issues raised by defense counsel in summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396 [1981]; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105 [1976]). Furthermore, since the subject remarks were not improper, defense counsel’s failure to object to those remarks did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel *(see People v Friel,*53 AD3d 667 [2008]; *People v Rose,*47 AD3d 848 [2008]). Eng, PJ., Dickerson, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
#### Lord v. Customized Consulting Speciality, Inc.

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 224P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-725)

Denied 10/11/07
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 annual report of Kankakee Bancorp, 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), I, Larry D.
Huffman, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the
Company.

 /s/ Larry D. Huffman
-----------------------
Larry D. Huffman,
Chief Executive Officer

March 26, 2003