alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Friday, May 2, 1997*

MERIT DOCKET

96-1270.

#### VFW Post 1238 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.

Huron App. No. H-95-065. This cause, here on certification of conflict by the Court of Appeals for Huron County, was considered in the manner prescribed by law. The court finds that the record establishes that the notice of appeal from the trial court to the court of appeals was not filed within the time prescribed by App.R. 4(A). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, *sua sponte,*for want of jurisdiction; the judgment of the court of appeals is vacated because it lacked jurisdiction; and the trial court’s entry filed on September 1, 1995, and journalized on September 5, 1995, is reinstated on authority of *Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.*(1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 21 O.O.3d 238, 423 N.E.2d 1105, paragraph one of the syllabus.

It is further ordered that the appellee recover from the appellant its costs herein expended, that a mandate be sent to the Court of Appeals for Huron County to carry this judgment into execution, and that a copy of this entry be certified to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Huron County for entry.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Nader, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Robert A. Nader, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>                                      
THE  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AS OF  AUGUST  31,  1998 AND THE  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>                                     
<CIK>                                         0000823975
<NAME>                                        Columbus Energy
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1
<CURRENCY>                                         U.S.DOLLARS
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       AUG-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1,000
<CASH>                                             1,391
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                       116
<INVENTORY>                                        106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   4,047
<PP&E>                                             37,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                     18,191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     23,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              4,252
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           922
<OTHER-SE>                                         14,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       23,491
<SALES>                                            8,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   9,210
<CGS>                                              2,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      10,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   30
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,552)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (590)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (962)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (962)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOE ANTONY CABRAL

,

Appellant

,

v

.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 128

- CR

Appeal from the

409 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20180D01243 )

O R D E R

The Court G R ANTS N atalie Martinez ’ s request for an extension of time within

which to file the Reporter’s Record until October 1 7

, 201 9

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WIL BE CONSIDERED

BY THIS COURT.

It is furth er OR DERED that Natalie Martinez

, Official Court Reporter for the 409 th

District Court

, for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record for the a bove styled

and numbered cause and forward the same to this Court on or before October 1 7

, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 7 th day of September 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 99.1   RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL REPORTS  I, Everett F. Jefferson, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Fresh Choice, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:  (1) the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 29, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.   March 21, 2003
  /S/ Everett F. JeffersonEverett F. JeffersonPresident and Chief
  Executive Officer
ow

ORDER OF TEMPORARY CLOSUR

iso]

To: Mr. Butch Denny
Chairman
Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska
Respondent

Ref. No. CO-96-01
April 25, 1996

1. Under the authority of 25 U.S.C. §2701 et seg. and 25
CFR Part 573, the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming
Commission hereby gives notice that the Santee Sioux Tribe of
Nebraska is ordered to close its gaming Casino located on Trust.
lands in Knox County Nebraska by 12 o'clock, noon, May 1, 1996.
This action is necessary due to violations of 25 CFR
§573.6(a) (11) of the regulations of the National Indian Gaming
Commission as described in Notice of Violation No. NOV-96-01
issued April 25, 1996.

2. The Chairman of the Commission may rescind this Order
for good cause shown.

3. Under 25 CFR §573.6(c), within seven (7) days after
service of this Order, the Respondent may request, orally or in
writing, informal expedited review by the Chairman. The Chairman
must complete such review within two (2) days after receipt of a
timely request. Within two (2) days after the expedited review
provided by 25 CFR §573.6(c), the Chairman must decide whether to
continue the Order and must provide the Respondent with an
explanation of the basis for the decision.

4. Whether or not a Respondent seeks the informal expedited
review described in paragraph 3 above, within 30 (thirty) days
after service of this Order, the Respondent may appeal to the
full Commission under 25 C.F.R. Part 577 by submitting a notice
of appeal to the National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L
Street, NW, Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20005. The Respondent has
a right to assistance of counsel in such an appeal. A notice of
appeal must reference this Order.

5. Within ten (10) days after filing a notice of appeal,
the Respondent must file with the Commi son a supplemental
statement that states with particularity the relief desired and

the grounds therefore and that includes, wien available,
supporting evidence in the form of affidevits It the Respondent
wishes to present oral testimony or witnesses at the hearing, the



Respondent must include a request to do so with the supplemental
statement. Tne request to present orei Cestimony or witnesses
must. specify the names of proposed witnesses and the general.
nature of their expected testimeny, whether a closed hearing is
requested and why. The Respondent may waive its right to an ora)
hearing and instead elect to have the matter determined by the
Commission solely on the basis of written submissions.

Dated this 25rd day of April, 1996.

aa 2 ee
Warold A. Nonteau
Chairman
National Indian Gaming Commission
#### Simon L. RUSKIN and Physiological Chemicals Company, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

April 19, 1955.

*209Hays, St. John, Abramson & Sehulman, New York City (John Schulman, Francis C. Leffler, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, New York City (Everett I. Willis, Edward N. Sherry, New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

THOMAS F. MURPHY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs move for discovery of three categories of documents set forth in their notice of motion as:

> “1. All correspondence relating to a patent pool with regard to penicillin or procaine penicillin;

> “2. The license agreements with regard to penicillin or procaine penicillin, entered into by defendant Lilly with the persons or concerns listed on page 8 of the annexed affidavit ;

> “3. All correspondence between defendant Lilly and the foreign licensees with regard to penicillin or procaine penicillin; * * * ”

It seems clear that correspondence or license agreements relating to penicillin have no relevancy whatsoever in the action since the complaint deals solely with the invention, procaine penicillin. In addition, as defendants state without contradiction, penicillin may be lawfully manufactured by any one and defendants have no license agreements with any one concerning this product.

Insofar as the discovery relates to correspondence with respect to procaine penicillin, either that relating to a patent pool or that between defendant Lilly and its foreign licensees, it appears from all of the evidence submitted on the motion that the patent pool referred to both by the witness A. H. Fisk and by his memorandum dated September 29, 1947, could not relate to procaine penicillin but rather only to the product penicillin. It also appears that such pool was brought about after World War II by the attempt of most of the pharmaceutical houses to agree on an exchange of rights in order that inventions arising out of a concerted program during the war would not be patented by any one member but would be available to all. Moreover, defendants alleged that these agreements never came to fruition, and this does not appear to be contradicted. Uncontradicted also is a statement that the procaine penicillin allegedly invented *210by Rhodehamel was not publicly known until October, 1947. The inference is strong then that the pool could not have any relation to this product. Accordingly, plaintiffs have not made sufficient showing of “good cause” to enable them to succeed on such a motion as this.

With reference to the license agreements, it appears that both of the parties to this suit are now engaged in actively litigated controversies abroad concerning their respective patents. The information- sought appears to be of the sort that plaintiffs might require in such suits and properly should be sought in such suits rather than in this one. In addition, this information sought largely involves trade secrets or other confidential matters.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

This is an order. No settlement is necessary.
#### Michael Jerome STEWART, Appellant v. Randy BELLOWS, The Honorable, Circuit Judge, Appellee.

No. 05-7127.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 3, 2006.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 22, 2006.

Michael Jerome Stewart, McLean, VA, for Appellant.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 10, 2005, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that appellant’s claims against a judge of the Fairfax County Circuit Court are barred by judicial immunity. *See Stump v. Sparkman,*435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

96-1094.

#### State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health.

Franklin App. No. 96APD01-70. Reported at 77 Ohio St.3d 247, 673 N.E.2d 1281. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
MEETING REQUEST 

PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND BRIEFING MATERIAL

via fax to (202) 632-7066 or email at meeting.request@nigc.gov

after filling it out and saving to your file folder or printing.

PLEASE SUBMIT MEETING REQUEST AT LEAST 2 WEEKS IN ADVANCE

MEETING REQUESTED BY (TRIBE/ORGANIZATION) DATE SUBMITTED:

MEETING DATE(S) REQUESTED: LENGTH OF MEETING:

MEETING REQUEST WITH:

Chair Full Commission Office of the Chief of Staff Office of the General Counsel

Division of Compliance Division of Public Affairs Division of Finance Division of Technology

Please provide as much information as possible using additional sheets if necessary

TOPIC OF MEETING (BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE):

PERSONS ATTENDING AND THEIR TITLES (TRIBAL LEADER/ATTORNEY/LOBBYIST):

CONTACT PERSON (NAME/EMAIL/PHONE/FAX):

OFFICE USE ONLY: COMFIRMED BY: AM

Accept Regret Refer DATE: TIME: PM

Pending Matters:

Revised: 6/2023
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KUNTA KENTA REDD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 7:08

- cr
- 00043

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before SHEDD , AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kunta Kenta Redd , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James , Scott Andrew Lemmon , Timothy Severo , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh , North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precede nt in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kunta Kenta Redd appeals the district court’s order denying his post

- judgment motion seeking appointment of counsel . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Redd’ s informal brief does not challenge the bas e s for the district court’s disposition, Redd has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accord ingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[991 NE2d 707, 969 NYS2d 849]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Travis Augustine, Appellant.

Argued April 30, 2013;

decided June 6, 2013

*950APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Matthew C. Hug,*Troy, for appellant.

*Terry J. Wilhelm, District Attorney,*Catskill, and *New York Prosecutor’s Training Institute, Inc.,*Albany *(Hannah E.C. Moore*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Travis Augustine was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree murder, aggravated cruelty to animals, and fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property (two counts). The victim, who died from a gunshot wound to the head, was discovered buried in the remote property she owned in Greene County, New York, where she had been living with defendant for several months in a camper; her pet bulldog, shot five times in the head, was buried above her. While in jail for a violation of probation (VOP), defendant was twice questioned by police about the victim’s disappearance, the second time after her body had been discovered. Counsel was not present. Defendant claims that his constitutional right to counsel was violated because he was represented by counsel on the VOP at the time, as evidenced by the notation made on an arraignment memorandum by the Town Justice who arraigned him on the VOP

*951Assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s indelible right to counsel was violated, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Lopez,*16 NY3d 375, 386-387 [2011], citing *People v Douglas,*4 NY3d 777, 779 [2005]; *see also People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 240-241 [1975]). There is no reasonable possibility that the introduction of the two challenged statements affected defendant’s conviction in view of the other evidence, including two counseled statements to police and testimony of numerous witnesses, that overwhelmingly established his guilt.

Defendant’s claim of insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated cruelty to animals is unpreserved; his remaining claims are without merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This legend contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy's
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1995, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000202584
<NAME> SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 012
   <NAME> SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,667,176
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     40,927
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         161,246
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       561,663
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,431,012
<COMMON>                                       789,350
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            7
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             85,920
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 875,277
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,219,917
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               2,990
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  250,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     44,107
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                28,000
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,038,721
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,431,012
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      605,639
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            77,410
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     291,934
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     369,344
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        236,295
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               6,287
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 242,582
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       149,543
<NET-INCOME>                                    93,039
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   93,039
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        92,800
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          96,460
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 ATS Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John R. Judd,
Controller 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, to the
best of my knowledge:

     1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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/ John R. Judd
                                        -----------------------
                                        John R. Judd
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        November 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ATS Medical, Inc. and will be retained by ATS Medical, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**
**Exhibit No. 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-138034,333-154765,333-177072, and 333-212457) on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No. 333-224533) on Form S-3 of Armstrong World Industries, Inc. of our reports dated February 25, 2019, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Armstrong WorldIndustries, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, and the related consolidated statements of earnings and comprehensive income, equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2018, and the related notes and financial statement schedule of valuation and qualifying reserves (collectively, the “consolidated financial statements”), and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2018, which reports appear in the December 31, 2018 annual report on Form 10-K of Armstrong World Industries, Inc. 

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Topic 606, Revenue from Contractswith Customers, and the related FASB Accounting Standard Updates, effective January 1, 2018, using the modified retrospective transition method. 

/s/KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

February 25, 2019
**