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

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                     <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1999         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             0               5,681
<SECURITIES>                                       0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                974,088             646,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                  792,100             250,175
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,914,599           1,057,784
<PP&E>                                     6,791,491           5,439,647
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            12,679,914           9,700,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,801,009           1,722,313
<BONDS>                                            0                   0
<COMMON>                                  13,115,017          12,396,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                        0                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                   108,919              42,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              12,679,914           9,700,684
<SALES>                                    1,735,585           1,240,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,735,585           1,403,296
<CGS>                                     (1,621,533)           (428,993)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             (2,549,981)         (1,225,691)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (215,310)           (163,990)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (63,564)           (130,006)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (2,714,803)           (991,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0                   0
<CHANGES>                                          0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              (2,714,803)           (991,044)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.48)              (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0                   0





</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04-15-00387-CR

 04-15-00388-CR

Benjamin ERICKSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2015CR3805 & 2015CR3807

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, these appeals are DISMISSED. 

SIGNED July 15, 2015.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 209 

Declaring support for Brain Awareness Week. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2019 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mrs. RODGERS of Washington) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Declaring support for Brain Awareness Week. 

Whereas more than 1,000 neurological and neurodegenerative 

diseases, such as schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury, 

autism and Parkinson’s disease affect the lives of nearly 

100 million Americans; 

Whereas neurological and neurodegenerative diseases are the 

leading contributors to global disease burden; 

Whereas neurological illnesses and mental disorders cost the 

United States more than $760 billion per year and can 

only be decreased through improved prevention, treatment, and the development of cures; 

Whereas the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative 

Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, whose multi-agency, cross-disciplinary work involves private and public enVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:42 Mar 12, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR209.IH HR209

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 209 IH 

tities, including the National Institutes of Health and the 

National Science Foundation, among others, is promoting 

research to develop new tools and technologies to revolutionize our understanding of the human brain and create 

lifesaving breakthroughs; and 

Whereas one dollar of research funding for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation 

each generates more than two dollars of economic output: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives does 

2 hereby declare support for Brain Awareness Week and 

3 calls upon all Americans to recognize the valuable con4 tributions that have been made to date in brain and spinal 

5 cord research and to support the conduct of this critical 

6 research in the future. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
NO. 03-14-00676-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

ANGELITA RODRIGUEZ PACHECO,

Appellant

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 424th Judicial District Court

Cause No. 41988

Burnet County, Texas

The Honorable Dan Mills, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF LATE BRIEF

Gary E. Prust

State Bar No. 24056166

1607 Nueces Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 469-0092

Fax: (512) 469-9102

gary@prustlaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ACCEPTED

03-14-00676-CR

6153558

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/21/2015 11:29:00 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/21/2015 11:29:00 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Oral Argument is not requested.

APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF LATE BRIEF

Now comes Appellant, by and through her attorney, Gary E. Prust, and files 

this Notice of Late Brief. Appellant’s brief was due July 20, 2015, and Appellant 

has been granted three requests for extension of time in which to file her brief. 

Attorney for Appellant has been diligently preparing, researching, and has 

narrowed the arguable issues. He has been unable to thoroughly and adequately 

complete the brief by the submission deadline but continues to dedicate a good 

deal of time to it. Attorney for Appellant has had an unexpected death in his 

immediate family in June and had to attend to those personal matters. Attorney for 

Appellant must also submit a brief in an unrelated appeal Wednesday, July 22, 

2015 and anticipates that filing will be timely. Appellant will submit a completed 

brief by Friday, July 24, 2015. Attorney for Appellant as not abandoned the brief or 

his representation of Appellant.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gary E. Prust

Gary E. Prust

State Bar No. 24056166

1607 Nueces St.

Austin, Texas 78701

(512)469-0092

Fax (512)469-9102

gary@prustlaw.com

Attorney for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In compliance with Rule 9.5(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

the undersigned attorney certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Brief was served upon Mr. Blake Ewing and Mr. Gary Bunyard, Assistant District 

Attorneys for the 33rd and 424th Judicial District Attorney’s Office office via 

electronic transmission through efiletexas.gov on this 21st day of July, 2015.

 /s/ Gary Prust 

Gary E. Prust

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify the above and foregoing Notice contains 156 words and is in 

compliance with TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4(2)(B).

/s/ Gary Prust

Gary E. Prust
SCPW-21-0000161

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

IN RE FRANCIS P. GRANDINETTI, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CASE NO. 3PC930000141)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Francis P.

Grandinetti’s submission to this court, which was filed as a

petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 19, 2021, and the

record, it appears that petitioner presents no special reason for

this court to invoke its jurisdiction and has alternative means

to seek the requested relief, including seeking relief in his

underlying circuit court proceeding or before the Hawai#i

Paroling Authority, as provided by law. See Oili v. Chang, 54

Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Petitioner is

represented by court-appointed counsel in the underlying

proceeding in the circuit court and should seek counsel’s

assistance. Accordingly,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-21-0000161

01-APR-2021

11:51 AM

Dkt. 3 ODDP
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the

appellate court shall process the petition for writ of habeas

corpus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 1, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; Notice of Closed Meetings

    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 
meetings.
    The meetings 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 Center for Research Resources 
Special Emphasis Panel; ARRA STRB July Meeting 2.
    Date: July 24, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Carol Lambert, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Review, National Institutes of Health, NCRR, 6701 
Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1076, MSC 4874, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, (301)-435-0814, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#224e434f40475056624f434b4e0c4c4b4a0c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c404d414e495e586c414d454002424544024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Research Resources 
Special Emphasis Panel; ARRA STRB July Meeting 1.
    Date: July 24, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mohan Viswanathan, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes 
of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1084, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0829, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f09d86c1c096b09e9998de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c7aab1f6f7a187a9aeafe9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical 
Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333; 93.702, 
ARRA Related Construction Awards., National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15057 Filed 6-25-09; 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>
An unpublisHed order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

HERON CRUZ, No. 68102
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, F j L E D
Respondent.
P JUL 20 2085

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from an order denying a motion to hold
in contempt. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan
Johnson, Judge.

Because no statute or court rule permits'an appeal from the
aforementioned decision, we lack jurisdiction. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev.
349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

A JJ.

aitta

Gibbéns Pickering

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge
Heron Cruz
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk

‘SuPneme Court

oF
Nevana
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS'
                                       


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
FiberChem, Inc.

We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements 
No. 33-61479 and 33-82330 on Form S-8 of our report dated November 21, 1997
related to the consolidated balance sheet of FiberChem Inc. and Subsidiaries
as of September 30, 1997, and the related statements of operations,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended September 30, 1997,
which report appears in the September 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-KSB of
FiberChem, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER & COMPANY, P.C.
New York, New York

January 6, 1998
IMMUCELL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

                           Exhibit 23.1

                Consent of Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.




<PAGE>





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement of
ImmuCell Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated January 30, 1998, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of ImmuCell Corporation, which
report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Portland, Maine
March 20, 1998


<PAGE>
                IMMUCELL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

                           Exhibit 27.1

        Financial Data Schedule (Filed Only Electronically)


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21.1	

	
	CINEPLEX ODEON CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

1.	Cine Parc Mercier Inc.  (Quebec, Canada)
2.	Cineplex Odeon (Quebec) Inc. (Canada)
3.	Cineplex Odeon Films, Inc.  (Delaware)
4.	Cineplex Odeon Films International, Inc.  (Delaware)
5.	C.O.H. Entertainment, Inc.  (Delaware)
6.	Plitt Southern Theatres, Inc.  (Delaware)
7.	Plitt Theatres, Inc.  (Delaware)
8.	RKO Century Warner Theatres, Inc.  (Delaware)
9.	Sedgwick Music Company  (California)
10.	The Walter Reade Organisation, Inc.  (Delaware)
11.	Westlake Investments, Ltd.  (Manitoba, Canada)
12.	140075 Canada Limited  (Canada)
13.	158983 Canada Inc.  (Canada)
14.	619918 Ontario Inc.  (Ontario, Canada)
15.	796278 Ontario Limited (Ontario, Canada)
16.	796279 Ontario Limited (Ontario, Canada)
17.	The Film House Group Inc. (Ontario, Canada)
18.	1002818 Ontario Limited (Ontario, Canada)
19.	Les Films Cineplex Odeon Quebec Inc. (Quebec, Canada)
20.	1002817 Ontario Limited (Ontario, Canada)
21.	Cineplex Odeon (Barbados) Inc. (Barbados)
22.	Cineplex Odeon Hungary Kft. (Hungary)
23.	Gatineau General Partnership (Quebec, Canada)
24.	Rio Centre Associates Limited Partnership (District of 
	Columbia)
25	Cineplex Odeon International B.V. (Netherlands)
#### WAYNE v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.

No, 808.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 5, 1942.

Roach & Brenner, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

OTIS, District Judge.

It is provided in Rule 49(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, that: “When the answers [to interrogatories submitted to the jury] are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court may direct the entry of judgment in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict * *

*203The present motion is overruled for two reasons. 1. The answers are not inconsistent with the general verdict. The verdict was for plaintiff. The answers are for plaintiff. While the answers (if corroborated by other answers to interrogatories not put) might have suggested a larger verdict, that is not such an inconsistency as the Rule contemplates. What the Rule contemplates is an answer wholly incompatible with the verdict. 2. The answers do not cover every essential element of the case and hence furnish an insufficient base for judgment for plaintiff, if the verdict for plaintiff is set aside.

For these reasons the motion is overruled. Exception to plaintiff. If neither reason is good the Court of Appeals, of course, may remand with direction to sustain the motion.

Overruled. So ordered.
#### Kateri Residence, a Not-For-Profit Corporation, et al., Respondents, v Antonia C. Novello, M.D., as Commissioner of Department of Health of State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Submitted January 7, 2013;

decided February 12, 2013

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

Judge Rivera taking no part.
#### Travers *v.*Boston Hammock Spreader Co. Same *v.*Beals. Same *v.*Nickerson.

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

May *24,*1888.)

Patents for Inventions—Patentability—Invention—Hammock Blocks.

The second claim of letters patent granted to Travers November 18,1879, for the combination of a hammock having suspension ropes with detachable curved distending blocks notched at the lower edge, is invalid by reason of the prior state of the art; detachable straight blocks notched at the lower edge to space the ropes having been in prior use, and there being no invention in making a curved block for the same purpose.

*134Iii Equity. Motions for preliminary injunctions.

*Briesen & Steele,*for complainant.

*Browne & Browne,*for defendants.

Colt, J

These are motions for preliminary injunctions based upon the alleged infringement of the second claim of letters patent granted to the complainant November 18, 1879, for improvements in hammocks. The claim is for the combination of a hammock having suspension ropes with detachable distending blocks, which are notched at their lower edge to space the rop.es. The improvement really consists in the use with a hammock of a detachable curved block notched at its lower edge. The evidence before me proves beyond question the prior use of a detachable straight block notched at its lower edge to space the ropes. There is also evidence going to prove the use of a curved block notched at either end. Such being the prior state of the art I am unable to find any invention in making a curved detachable block notched at its lower edge. Hammocks with curved and straight blocks were exhibited before me at the hearing, and the relative merits of each tested in court, and except perhaps in the more attractive appearance of the former, I was unable to discover any substantial difference between the two in the results accomplished. The only embarrassment I labor under arises from the fact that Judge Wallace in the case of *Travers*v. *Beyer,*26 Fed. Rep. 450, sustained the validity of this patent upon final hearing. In the written opinion of Judge Wallace the question of anticipation is not touched upon, but this point was decided orally in the plaintiff’s favor at the hearing. An examination of the record and briefs of counsel in that case, which are now before me, discloses that it was a disputed question whether a straight detachable block notched at its lower edge had been in use prior to Travers’ invention, and it may be the court held that such anticipation was not sufficiently proved, while in the present case it is not denied. Upon the record before me, I have- such doubt as to the validity of the second claim of the patent that I do not feel justified in granting these motions. Motions denied.
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - June 2002 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Benefit payments June 2002 

Total 

Retired employees 

Spouses and divorced spouses 

Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 

Other survivors 20,814,000 21,121,000 

155,941,000 151,134,000 

440,700,000 

88,267,000 86,747,000 

June 2001 

$716,515,000 $699,701,000 

451,493,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 646,200 ......... 3,400 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 298,000 $1,519 1,700 $2,274 ......... 

Age 216,500 1,482 2 800 2 2,540 3 $1,129 

Disability, age 65 and over 37,100 1,357 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, under age 65 44,400 1,830 400 2,125 

Spouses and divorced spouses 151,600 575 900 760 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 167,300 937 700 1,292 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,100 1,216 4/ 1,280 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 15,200 628 100 733 

Children 13,000 729 100 975 

Other survivors 100 617 ......... ......... ......... 

5/ / 

574 582 

832 712 

......... 

621 640 

817 888 

431 328 

$878 

......... 

......... 

......... 

Monthly benefits 

Being Paid Awarded 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

June 2002 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

Benefit payments 

June June 

2002 2001 Number Average 

$5,604,000 $5,630,000 132,000 $42 3,500 $43 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement.

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); about 500

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis.

4

Fewer than 50.

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers.

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

June 2002 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 3,400 $246.90 

Sickness 5,900 247.70 

Unemployment 

Sickness 2,815,000 3,749,000 

3,055,000 1,800,000 

Benefit payments 

June 2001 

Total $5,869,000 $5,549,000 

436.96 

June 2002 

Per 

full week 

$431.33 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

Average payment 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs