alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 4996.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACTING COMPANY vs. AUGUST LEVIS.

Ansley and Montgomery for plaintiff and appellant.

Chas. Louque for defendant and appellee.

DUFOUR, J.

The plaintiff’s claim for the price of construction of a cement walk in front of property belonging to defendant is met with the defense that the work done was unworkmanlike and was made with unsuitable material.

The work was completed and approved by the City Engineer in May, 1907, and suit was entered in August, 1908.

It is shown that the work was properly done, and the proper material was used, and that no complaint was made at any time by Levis, until payment was demanded of him by suit.

He then made his first protest and presented witnesses who examined the work eight or nine months after completion and who say that they found ten or eleven stones cracked.

The plaintiff’s evidence shows that the demand was verbally made several times for payment, several bills were sent, from time to time, and that the City Engineer’s certificate of acceptance was furnished.

Defendant’s testimony is more convenient than reliable, though he does not specifically deny the material *398features of the plaintiff's evidence, he is unable to rein ember anything detrimental to his side of the case. He gravely states that he did not know the work was finished and, in fact, did not know it had begun.

May 2, 1910.

Rehearing refused May 16, 1910.

Writ denied by Supreme Court June 22, 1910.

Complaints for the first time made nine months after completion of a work and practically coinciding in point of time with a judicial demand' for payment, do not commend themselves to our favorable consideration.

Where it is shown that at the time of completion the work was well executed with proper material and according to contract, the statement that defects developed eight or nine months afterwards will not avail in resisting payment of the price. Non constat, that they may not be due to causes supervening since the termination of the contract, such as washing away of filling or the tramping of animals.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover.

Judgment reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, the Concrete Construction and Contracting Company, and against defendant, A. A. Levis, in the sum of three hundred and eighty-eight dollars with legal interest from May 29, 1908, and with recognition of plaintiff’s lien and privilege on the property described in the petition, defendant to pay costs of both courts.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RANDY A. HART, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1185

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 16, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Polk County; William D.Sites, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter 

v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Henry v. State, 933 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2006); Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 

884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

KHOUZAM, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly
report of Medical Technology Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Todd E. Siegel, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)       
          The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)       
          The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                      | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Dated:  November 13, 2003             | 
|                                      | 
|/s/Todd E. Siegel                     | 
|Todd E. Siegel                        | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|                                      | 
|                                      |
#### Cowan *v.*Union Pac. Ry. Co.

*(Circuit Court, D. Colorado.*

May *12,*1888)

Master and Servant—Negligence oe Master—Failure to Fence Railroad Track.

Neither common nor statute law in Colorado require that a railroad company shall fence its track to prevent cattle from straying upon it. Hence, the company is not liable for the death of one of its engineers caused by a collision with cattle on the track.

At Law. Action for damages. On demurrer to complaint.

*Browne & Putnam,*for plaintiff.

*Teller & Orahood,*for defendant.

Brewer, J.

In Cowan against the Union Pacific Railway Company is a demurrer to the complaint. The cause of action is, briefly, thát the plaintiff’s intestate wa.s an engineer on the defendant’s road, and while running a train, stray cattle jumped on the track, whereby the engine was thrown therefrom and he killed. Neither common nor statute law in Colorado requires that a railroad company fence its track to prevent cattle straying upon it, and where there is no obligation there is no liability. Counsel for plaintiff, in his brief, admits there is no authority sustaining this complaint, but insists that somebody must blaze the way, and we ought to. It is sufficient reply to that that it is the duty of the law-making power—the legislature—to blaze the way. The duty of the court is simply to walk *super antiquas vias.*Many a ease I decide one way when I should decide differently if I had authority to make as well as construe the law. In the absence of any legislative action establishing a new rule, the only true way and rule for the court is to say *ita lex scripta est,.*The demurrer to the complaint will be sustained. This is one of those cases whose pleading, I think, in the nature of things, cannot be changed so as to make a cause of action.
Document

CERTAIN INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH NOT MATERIAL AND WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE REGISTRANT IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. OMISSIONS ARE DESIGNATED AS [***].






April 12, 2022

Alpine Immune Sciences Inc.
188 E Blaine St Suite 200 
Seattle, WA 98102 
United States 
Attention: Paul Rickey, CFO
Re:    The Option and License Agreement between Alpine Immune Sciences Inc. (“Alpine”) and AbbVie Global Enterprises Ltd. (as assignee of AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Company) (“AbbVie”), made and entered into as of June 17, 2017 (the “Agreement”)
To Whom it May Concern:
This letter serves to memorialize the agreement between AbbVie and Alpine to replace Schedule 1.157 of the Agreement with the Schedule 1.157 attached to this letter as Exhibit A.
Please countersign this letter below and return a copy to AbbVie. This letter will be effective upon execution by each of the parties. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact John Larson, Senior Director, Alliance Management, at [***].
Sincerely,
/s/ Arthur C. Price    
AbbVie Global Enterprises Ltd.
Name: Arthur C. Price
Title: Director
Agreed:
/s/ Paul Rickey    
Alpine Immune Sciences Inc. 
Name: Paul Rickey
Title:  CFO
















Exhibit A
Schedule 1.157
[***] Success Completion Criteria


[***]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,418)
<INVENTORY>                                    189,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               330,168
<PP&E>                                         179,562
<DEPRECIATION>                               (101,774)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 428,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           17,160
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   428,928
<SALES>                                        646,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               647,563
<CGS>                                          465,585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  465,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,399
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,115
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,215
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31


</TABLE>
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-65,845]

      ( print page 28280)    
In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 24, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Broyhill Furniture, Inc., Broyhill Rutherfordton Distribution Center, Rutherfordton, North Carolina.

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

Signed in Washington, DC, this 20th day of May, 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13910 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12-A


                        Atlantic City Electric Company

                      Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                      ----------------------------------
                            (Dollars in Thousands)
                            ----------------------


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Year Ended December 31,
                                           --------------------------------------------------------
                                             1999        1998        1997        1996        1995
                                           --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
<S>                                        <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Income before extraordinary item           $ 63,930    $ 30,276    $ 85,747    $ 75,017    $ 98,752
                                           --------    --------    --------    --------    --------

Income taxes                                 49,326      18,178      50,442      36,958      48,277
                                           --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Fixed charges:
        Interest on long-term debt
            including amortization of
            discount, premium and
            expense                          60,562      63,940      64,501      64,847      62,879
        Other interest                        3,837       3,435       3,574       4,019       4,364
        Preferred dividend require-
            ments of subsidiary
            trusts                            7,634       6,052       5,775       1,428           -
                                           --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
            Total fixed charges              72,033      73,427      73,850      70,294      67,243
                                           --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Earnings before extraordinary
        item, income taxes and
        fixed charges                      $185,289    $121,881    $210,039    $182,269    $214,272
                                           ========    ========    ========    ========    ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges             2.57        1.66        2.84        2.59        3.19
</TABLE>

For purposes of computing the ratio, earnings are income before extraordinary
item plus income taxes and fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest on
long- and short-term debt, amortization of debt discount, premium, and expense,
dividends on preferred securities of subsidiary trusts, and the estimated
interest component of rentals.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 9, 2014

No. 04-14-00182-CR

Alexander Michael FRANKLIN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR0179W

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record 

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant 

causes an amended trial court certification to be filed within thirty days from the date of this 

order showing appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also 

Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). All other appellate 

deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,747]


Parker Hannifin Corporation, Nichols Portland Division, Portland, 
ME; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 3, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers at Parker Hannifin Corporation, Nichols 
Portland Division, Portland, Maine. The workers at the subject facility 
produce gerotors.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13899 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
* 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 December 5, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40923

HUBERT T. GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LARRY OLIVAREZ, SHERIFF; UNKNOWN NURSE; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3; JOHN DOE #4; DOE #4; DOE #5; DOE #6; DOE #7; DOE #8; DOE #9, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-00-CV-299

-------------------- Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Hubert T. Garland (Garland) appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Garland argues that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in dismissing his complaint for want of prosecution due to his failure to attend an evidentiary hearing.No. 03-40923 -2- This court must determine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Smith v. Smith , 145 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 1998). Garland filed his notice of appeal well after the thirty-day period for timely filing of notice. F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1)(A). He filed no motion for extension of time. F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(5). Even if this court construed Garland’s notice of appeal to be a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal, the motion would be untimely. Garland’s motion was not filed within 180 days after the entry of judgment or within seven days of his learning of the entry of judgment. F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(6)(A). Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction over any challenge to the magistrate’s judgment dismissing his complaint.

APPEAL DISMISSED
16

Number of Revenues Percentage of Mean Median

Gaming Revenue Range Submissions (in thousands) Submissions Revenues (in thousands) (in thousands)

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2019

$250 million and over 33 15,629,916 6.3% 45.2% $473,634 $386,381

$100 million to $250 million 62 10,444,602 11.9% 30.2% $168,461 $165,864

$50 million to $100 million 54 3,798,391 10.3% 11.0% $70,341 $66,958

$25 million to $50 million 67 2,360,435 12.8% 6.8% $35,230 $34,292

$10 million to $25 million 97 1,630,332 18.6% 4.7% $16,808 $16,185

$3 million to $10 million 90 594,918 17.2% 1.7% $6,610 $6,824

Under $3 million 119 119,948 22.8% 0.3% $1,008 $721

Total 522 34,578,542

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2018

$250 million and over 34 15,702,390 6.8% 46.6% $461,835 $381,315

$100 million to $250 million 59 9,658,287 11.8% 28.6% $163,700 $163,221

$50 million to $100 million 52 3,668,802 10.4% 10.9% $70,554 $68,739

$25 million to $50 million 69 2,439,840 13.8% 7.2% $35,360 $33,559

$10 million to $25 million 94 1,554,036 18.8% 4.6% $16,532 $16,277

$3 million to $10 million 91 590,180 18.2% 1.8% $6,485 $6,675

Under $3 million 102 106,033 20.4% 0.3% $1,040 $910

Total 501 33,719,569

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2017

$250 million and over 33 15,016,924 6.7% 46.3% $455,058 $363,086

$100 million to $250 million 56 9,058,782 11.3% 28.0% $161,764 $164,374

$50 million to $100 million 54 3,767,470 10.9% 11.6% $69,768 $69,893

$25 million to $50 million 68 2,382,602 13.8% 7.4% $35,038 $32,287

$10 million to $25 million 91 1,494,558 18.4% 4.6% $16,424 $15,749

$3 million to $10 million 89 575,005 18.0% 1.8% $6,461 $6,754

Under $3 million 103 108,586 20.9% 0.3% $1,054 $883

Total 494 32,403,927

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2016

$250 million and over 33 14,429,248 6.8% 46.3% $437,250 $363,632

$100 million to $250 million 51 8,286,641 10.5% 26.6% $162,483 $166,810

$50 million to $100 million 57 4,011,478 11.8% 12.9% $70,377 $67,928

$25 million to $50 million 67 2,290,169 13.8% 7.3% $34,182 $32,673

$10 million to $25 million 96 1,561,863 19.8% 5.0% $16,269 $15,825

$3 million to $10 million 85 521,096 17.6% 1.7% $6,131 $6,420

Under $3 million 95 95,055 19.6% 0.3% $1,001 $723

Total 484 31,195,549

Submissions with fiscal years ending in 2015

$250 million and over 31 13,438,296 6.5% 45.0% $433,493 $364,412

$100 million to $250 million 48 7,912,634 10.1% 26.5% $164,847 $171,114

$50 million to $100 million 54 3,880,101 11.4% 13.0% $71,854 $69,112

$25 million to $50 million 69 2,466,214 14.6% 8.3% $35,742 $33,948

$10 million to $25 million 98 1,590,194 20.7% 5.3% $16,226 $15,676

$3 million to $10 million 79 495,275 16.7% 1.7% $6,269 $6,434

Under $3 million 95 99,031 20.0% 0.3% $1,042 $771

Total 474 $29,881,744

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audit reports received and entered by the NIGC through 11/19/2020.

NIGC Tribal Gaming Revenues

FY15-FY19 Gaming Revenues by Range
Exhibit 12(a)Entergy Arkansas, Inc.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends2000
2001
2002
2003
2004Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest Charges
$101,600
$109,523
$103,210
$91,221
$84,430Interest applicable to rentals
16,449
14,563
12,762
15,425
13,171Total fixed charges, as defined
118,049
124,086
115,972
106,646
97,601Preferred dividends, as defined (a)
13,479
12,348
11,869
14,274
12,646Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined
$131,528
$136,434
$127,841
$120,920
$110,247Earnings as defined:Net Income
$137,047
$178,185
$135,643
$126,009
$142,210Add:Provision for income taxes:Total
100,512
105,933
71,404
105,296
89,064Fixed charges as above
118,049
124,086
115,972
106,646
97,601Total earnings, as defined
$355,608
$408,204
$323,019
$337,951
$328,875Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
3.01
3.29
2.79
3.17
3.37Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges andpreferred dividends, as defined
2.70
2.99
2.53
2.79
2.98------------------------(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by dividing the
      preferred dividend
      requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax
      rate.
#### Marlene Scher, Appellant, v Paramount Pictures Corp. et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 4, 2013;

decided April 2, 2013

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.