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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          91,000
<SECURITIES>                                   146,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,509,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   157,000
<INVENTORY>                                     87,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,448,000
<PP&E>                                       4,273,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,631,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,489,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,964,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       212,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,313,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,489,000
<SALES>                                      1,671,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,802,000
<CGS>                                        1,224,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,522,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               157,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,721,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,731,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,731,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.29)
        

</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MI C HA E L E . S P R E AD B UR Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. U. S . DE P AR T ME NT OF HE AL T H & H U M A N S E R V I C E S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35901 D . C . N o . 9 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 0 8 1 - D WM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont ana D ona l d W . M ol l oy , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i c ha e l E . S pr e a dburyappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt di s m i s s i ng f

orl a c k of

s t andi ng hi s a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tde m ol i t i on and c ons truc t i on a c tiv itie s r e la te dto th e R o c kyM o u n ta in L ab o r a to r ie s ( th e “L ab o r a to r ie s ” ) in 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 35901 2 H a m i l t on, M ont anavi ol a t e d the N a t i ona l E nvi r onm e nt a l P ol i c yA c tof 1969, 42 U .S .C . § § 4 3 2 1 e t s e q . ( th e “A c t” ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ad is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( ii) . B arre n v. H arr i ngton , 1 5 2 F. 3 d1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 4 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( o r d e r ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dS p r e a db u ry ’s a c tio n f o rf a ilu r e to sat i sf y c on st i tut i on aland p rudent i alst andi ng re qu i re m ent s. F i rs t , S prea db ury f a i l e d t o de s c r i be how de f e ndant s ’ a l l e ge d c ons truc t i on a c t i vi t i e s i n vi ol a t i on of the A c t r e s u lte din an in

ju ryto h is p e r s o n a l, c o n c r e te in te r e s ts . Se e N u c le a rI n fo . & Res . Se rv . v . NR C , 4 5 7 F .3 d9 4 1 , 9 4 9 - 5 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( s e ttin g f o rth c ons t i tut i ona l s t andi ng r e qui r e m e nt s ) . S e c ond, S pr e a dburyf a i l e d t o a l l e ge how de f e ndant s ’ a l l e ge d a c t i ons i nj ur e d hi m w i thi n the z one of i nt e r e s t s pr ot e c t e d by th e A c t. Se e A s hle

yCr e e k P hos phate C o. v . N

or ton , 42 0 F . 3d 93 4, 94 0 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( se tt i ng forth p rudent i alst andi ng re qu i re m ent s) . S prea db ury’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
#### Paul James KOUMJIAN, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick PERRY, Texas Governor; Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General; Brad Livingston, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, TDCJ; Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-50599

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 24, 2009.

*318Paul James Koumjian, Huntsville, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paul James Koumjian, Texas prisoner # 1039181, seeks a certificate of appeala-bility (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition. The district court’s ruling relied upon its time-bar dismissal of Koumjian’s prior federal habeas petition filed in 2005. The appeal from that dismissal, however, remains pending in this court. *See Koum-jian v. Quarterman,*No. 06-51492. Accordingly, Koumjian has shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Woollard v. United States,*416 F.2d 50, 51 (5th Cir.1968). Koumjian’s motion for a COA is GRANTED, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this ruling. Koumjian’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email

## Overview

The Muscle Development and Physiology Program research portfolio focuses on development, growth, and maintenance of skeletal muscle tissue. Grantees are investigating mechanisms of muscle repair and regeneration; basic biology of satellite cells and muscle stem cells; and excitation-contraction coupling.

Studies also are underway to better understand skeletal muscle fitness and adaptation to exercise, and mechanisms in skeletal muscle contractile apparatus. In addition, funded researchers are exploring muscle metabolism and muscle imaging.

#### Research Core Centers

Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Research Network

## Funding Opportunities

## Research News

#### Contact Us

Marjorie Lindhurst, Ph.D.

                    Bethesda                                MD                                20892-4872            

marjr@mail.nih.gov

**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email
Leothis West, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Timothy Gaithes, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

DEC 1 0 2010 

Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

102U96 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis 

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain "( 1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 

F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair 

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 

F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). In pleading fraud or mistake, "a party must state with 

particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). 
.. , 

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues an individual with a District of Columbia 

address for fraud. Because no facts are stated in support of the claim, the complaint will be 

dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: December L., 2010 

United States District Judge 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
BALANCE SHEET OF ARETE INDUSTRIES, INC. AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30,
1999 AND 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          56,960
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,685
<PP&E>                                           2,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          585,720
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                     7,211,457
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,618
<SALES>                                        171,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,618
<CGS>                                          126,618
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  231,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (186,907)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (186,907)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Mohamad Ichsanul FIKRI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-2199.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 30, 2006.

Winston W. Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Leslie McKay, Senior Ligation Counsel, Unit*260ed States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG,* and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*

 Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

PER CURIAM:

Mohamad Ichsanul Fikri, a native and citizen of Indonesia, appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order granting him voluntary departure and entering an alternate order of removal to Indonesia Specifically, Fikri contends that the Board erred in upholding the immigration judge’s denial of his motion for a fourth continuance.

Based on our review of the record, we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the denial of Fikri’s motion for a continuance. *See Onyeme v. INS,*146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998) (setting forth standard of review). We have also reviewed Fikri’s claim that the Board rendered its decision in violation of his rights to due process of law. As Fikri fails to establish that his rights were “transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact the results of the proceeding,” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir.2002), we find that he is not entitled to relief on this claim.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 54058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25282]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, Women's Reproductive Health.
    Date: November 16, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, Ph.D, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division Of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute, of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 
Execuctive Blvd., Rm. 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435-6884. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4c8c1d7dec7deddc0e4c9c5cdc88acacdcc8ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f333a2c253c25263b1f323e36337131363771383029">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 14, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-25282 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1359

___________ United States, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * Drew Brockevelt, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 28, 2007 Filed: January 10, 2008 (Corrected: 01/11/2008)

___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Drew Brockevelt challenges the reas onableness of the 27-month prison sentence the district court imposed after hepleaded guilty to charges of (1) possessing materials, shipped or transported in in terstate commerce, which contained visual depictions of minors engage d in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B); and (2) criminal forfeiture of a computer and other property involved in the commission of the offense, pursu ant to 18 U.S.C. § 2253. For reversal, Brockevelt argues the district court improperly applied a presumption of reasonableness to his advisory Guidelin es imprisonment range, contrary to the principles in Unite d States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), as further explained in-2- Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2465 (2007), which was issued after Brockevelt’s sentencing hearing.
Because it is unclear from the record whether or not the district court applied a presumption of reasonableness to Br ockevelt’s correctly calculated advisory Guidelines imprisonment range, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in light of Rita , 127 S. Ct. at 2465 (presumption of reasonableness accorded to sentences reflecting proper applications of Guidelines app lies only on appellate review, not at sentencing). See United States v. Burns , 500 F.3d 756, 761 n.1 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (following Rita , presumption of reasonableness exists only at appellate level), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Nov. 20, 2007) (No. 07-7805). Brockevelt’s sentence is vacated, and th e case is remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2556 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2556

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Methyl-4-methoxy-6-
                      methylamino-1,3,5-triazine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

  Mr. Burris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Methyl-4-methoxy-6-
                      methylamino-1,3,5-triazine.

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

SECTION 1. 2-METHYL-4-METHOXY-6-METHYLAMINO-1,3,5-TRIAZINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.44 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2-Methyl-4-methoxy-6-
methylamino-1,3,5-triazine) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed, January 09, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-01065-CV

____________

RAMESH KAPUR D/B/A AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellant

V.

HARRIS COUNTY, LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON LLP 

AND CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-71264

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due December 30, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cantrece Addison, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### Harsharan Sethi, Appellant, v Deborah Morrissey et al., Respondents.

[961 NYS2d 809]

*834In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered February 9, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the complaint as time-barred *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The statute of limitations for an action to recover damages for defamation is one year *(see*CPLR 215 [3]), measured from the date of publication of the allegedly defamatory statement *(see Ross v Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc., 65*AD3d 540, 541 [2009]; *E.B. v Liberation Pubis.,*7 AD3d 566, 567 [2004]). The plaintiff did not commence the instant action until approximately 18 months after the publication of the challenged statement. Moreover, the complaint did not allege misleading conduct on the part of the defendants upon which the plaintiff could have reasonably relied to delay commencement of the action, so as to equitably estop the defendants from asserting the bar of the statute of limitations *(see IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,*12 NY3d 132, 141 [2009]; *Zumpano v Quinn,*6 NY3d 666, 674-675 [2006]; *Reiner v Jaeger,*50 AD3d 761, 762 [2008]; *Duberstein v National Med. Health Card Sys., Inc.,*37 AD3d 209, 210 [2007]; *Teneriello v Travelers Cos.,*226 AD2d 1137, 1138 [1996]; *Jordan v Ford Motor Co.,*73 AD2d 422, 424 [1980]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not consider the parties’ remaining contentions.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### HOFFMAN v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.

Civil Action No. 24367.

District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Sept. 19, 1947.

*575Samuel T. Gaines and William B. Sampliner, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Ben B. Wickham, of Boyd, Brooks & Wickham, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

WILKIN, District Judge.

This case was heard on defendant’s objections to making answer to interrogatories submitted by plaintiff, and on motion of plaintiff for order on defendant to produce and permit inspection, copying or photographing of designated things.

The motion to produce is in three parts. As to (1) the motion is sustained. As to (2) the motion is sustained, except as to any statement or report in the possession of attorneys of the defendant which come within the purview of the decision in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385. As to (3) the motion is overruled.

As to objections to interrogatories, the objections are overruled as to interrogatories (1), (2), (5), (7) and (8). As to the other interrogatories, the objections are sustained. The other information sought in the interrogatories is covered by the plaintiff’s motion to produce in so far as the plaintiff is entitled to such information. The plaintiff is not entitled to statements made to defendant by witnesses in the absence of a showing why such information cannot be secured from the witnesses by deposition. Creden v. Central R. Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 168.
#### Lisa Humbertson Brady, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Paul R. Brady, Deceased, Appellant, v Village of Malverne et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted January 10, 2011;

decided March 24, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.