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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         234,126
<SECURITIES>                                   320,120
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,107,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                   662,475
<INVENTORY>                                    5,736,221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,236,709
<PP&E>                                         2,327,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (484,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,147,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,283,026
<BONDS>                                        727,803
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       180,051
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,871,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,147,041
<SALES>                                        5,067,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,067,079
<CGS>                                          2,937,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,009,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,948
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             21,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                102,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            102,990
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   102,990
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.01
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. GAHAGAN DREDGING CORPORATION, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 14, 1958.

S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., New York City, for plaintiff.

Foley & Martin, New York City, for defendant.

BICKS, District Judge.

The United States of 'America brings this action to recover a statutory penalty alleged to be due by reason of defendant allowing its vessels to be navigated on the high seas without first obtaining the certificate of inspection required by 46 U.S.C.A. § 395.

The instant motion is by the United States for an order vacating and quashing the defendant’s notice to take the testimony of “the plaintiff by its Officer familiar with the matters alleged in the complaint * * *." Movant contends that such notice fails to meet the requirements set forth by Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 30(a), 28 U.S.C.A.

*329That section provides: “A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to which he belongs.” The notice of examination in this case does not' conform to the rule. In effect, it requires the plaintiff to determine the identity of the individuals whom the defendant wishes to examine. The rules do not sanction placing such a burden upon the party sought to be examined. Spaeth v. Warner Bros. Pictures, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1941, 1 F.R.D. 729; Park & Tilford Distillers Corp. v. The Distillers Company, Ltd., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956, 19 F.R.D. 169.

Motion granted.
# 16SNR11_00

# image1.png
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-129884, 333-134280, 333-142701, 333-160496, 333-167925 and 333-185433) and Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-129680, 333-134279, 333-141014, 333-161453, 333-162160, 333-163517,
333-166444, 333-174292 and 333-177793) of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc. of our report dated March 18, 2013 relating to our audit of the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which report includes an
emphasis paragraph relating to an uncertainty as to the Companys ability to continue as a going concern), which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2012.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ McGladrey LLP                   
|                                    
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 18, 2013
[No. 55419-1-I.

Division One.

November 28, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James Richard Hills, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-1-10807-8, Douglass A. North, J., entered December 6, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 18, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00637

- CR

IN RE Ramon Oniel SARAVIA

- BONILLA

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On June 29, 2023, Relator, Ramon Oniel Saravia

- Bonilla, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s June 15, 2023, order. Relator also filed a motion to stay the underlying proceedings, which we granted on June 30, 2023.

On June 21, 2023, we issued an opinion holding that equal protection claims are cognizable in a pre

- trial application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Aparacio , 672 S.W.3d 696, 713 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2023, pet. granted) (en banc). We believe the trial court should have an opportunity to reconsider its decision in light of our recent opinion. T herefore, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Relator’s seeking relief, if necessary, after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its ruling. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

The stay issued on June 30, 2023, is LIFT ED

.

It is so ORDERED on October 18, 2023

.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of October, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11490CR , styled State of Texas v. Ramon Oniel Saravia

- Bonilla , pending

in the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
# 2017

&8page &P of &N
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bondy Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Lightscape Technologies Inc., certify that:

1.          
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Lightscape Technologies
Inc.;

2.          
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.          
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and
15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and I have:

(a)          
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          
disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.          
I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controls over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b)          
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: July 16, 2007

*/s/ Bondy Tan*

Bondy Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
[No. 32261-7-II.

Division Two.

October 18, 2005.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Linda Jean Ferrier, *Respondent,*and Karl Walter Ferrier, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, No. 00-3-00085-5, F. Mark McCauley, J., entered September 9, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Van Deren, A.C.J., concurred in by Houghton and Armstrong, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 141 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act

    Notice is hereby given that on June 16, 2009, a proposed Consent 
Decree (Decree) in the case of United States v. American Laboratories, 
Inc., Civil Action No. 8:09-CV-00194, was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the District of Nebraska. Under this Consent Decree, 
the Settling Defendant is required to pay a total of $440,000 in civil 
penalty for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, and recover and 
reuse at 93% of total isopropyl alcohol and implement best available 
control technology at its pharmaceutical manufacturing plant in Omaha, 
Nebraska.
    For thirty (30) days after the date of this publication, the 
Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to 
[email protected] or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In either case, the 
comments should refer to United States v. American Laboratories, Inc., 
D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-08313.
    The Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney, 1620 Dodge Street, Suite 1400, Omaha, Nebraska 68102. During 
the comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined on the following 
Department of Justice Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail 
from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request 
to Tonia Fleetwood ([email protected]), fax no. (202) 514-0097, 
phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the 
Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $9.25 
(with attachments) or $8.00 (without attachments) (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury or, if by e-
mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree 
Library at the stated address.

Maureen M. Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. E9-17696 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
```
#### TREBUHS REALTY CO., Inc. et al. v. NEWS SYNDICATE CO., Inc. et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Nov. 23, 1951.

*111Klein & Weir, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Townley, Updike & Carter, New York City, for defendant News Syndicate Co., Inc. Stuart N. Updike, New York City, of counsel.

Lord, Day & Lord, New York City, for defendant New York Times Co. Thomas F. Daly, New York City, of counsel.

Brown, Cross *&*Hamilton, New York City, for defendant New York Herald Tribune, Inc. E. Douglas Hamilton, New York City, of counsel.

McCauley & Henry, New York City, for defendant Hearst Corp. arid New York Journal—American Dept.—Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc. James Carroll, New York City, of counsel.

M. Marvin Berger, New York City, for defendant New York Post Co.

De Witt, Van Aken & Nast, New York City, for defendant New York World-Telegram Corp. Thomas Diskin, New York City, of counsel.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs (eight corporations operating fifteen “legitimate theatres” in the City of New York) seek to restrain the alleged violation by defendants (publishers of seven leading newspapers in the City of New York) of § 1 of the Sherman AntiTrust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1, and §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S. C.A. §§ 15 and 26. All defendants, relying in their briefs on Rules 10(b) and 12(e), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. meet the complaint by a joint motion “to compel separate statements of claims”.

A pleading should contain a short and plain statement of the claim1, and be simple, concise and direct2 . A complaint which meets these requirements is sufficient except where it “ * * * is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading $ ’ * *if ”**3*

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the function of a complaint is to afford fair notice to the adversary of the nature and basis of the claim asserted and a general indication of the type of litigation involved4.

The instant complaint meets that test. It states in essence that the defendants have conspired, in violation of the anti-trust statutes, to deny the plaintiffs as theatre *operators*the advantages, accorded to others who *produce*plays, of a. scale of rates which becomes lower as the volume of amusement advertising increases. It gives to the defendants fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim asserted and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.

Ample instrumentalities are afforded the defendants under Part V, F.R.Civ.P., to inform themselves in greater detail concerning the allegations of the complaint.5

*112In arriving at this determination, the complaint alone was considered and no attention given to the affidavit of Lee Shubert, submitted in opposition to the motion.

Motion denied.

1

. F.R.Civ.P. rule 8(a).

2

. ' F.B..Civ.P. rule 8(e).

3

. F.R.Civ.P. rule 12(e).

4

. Continental Collieries, Inc. v. Shober, 3 Cir., 1942, 130 F.2d 631, at 635.

5

. Scervini v. Miles Laboratories, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1951, 11 F.R.D. 542.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSEPH MCGAUGHEY, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Case No. 6:04-CR-90-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Appellant McGaughey pled guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to twenty-one months imprisonment subject to his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home. He argues that the search warrant was supported by a “bare bones” affidavit and that the Government failed to corroborate two anonymous tips.

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible,2

even though the affidavit on which the warrant was based was insufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v. Satterwhite , 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984). The exception will not apply, however, to a “bare bones” af fidavit, that is, an affidavit “so deficient in demonstrating probable cause that it renders an officer’s belief [in the existence of probable

cause] completely unreasonable.” United States v. Cisneros , 112 F.3d 1272, 1278 (5th Cir. 1997). Such an affidavit is “based upon conclusory statements,” and lacks “facts and circumstances from which a magistrate can independently determine probable cause.” United States v. Pofahl , 990 F.2d 1456, 1474 n.18 (5th Cir. 1993).

In this case, the search warrant was not supported by a “bare bones” affidavit because the citizen informants did not provide untrustworthy information and the police sufficiently corroborated the information. The informants independently provided the police with firsthand knowledge of McGaughey’s name, address, and place of work, and the police verified the accuracy of this information before seeking the warrant. Both informants told similar, detailed stories of McGaughey showing child pornography to visitors in his home, and finally, the police observed McGaughey’s association with a known possessor of child pornography at his home. Therefore, the affidavit supporting the warrant was not “bare bones,” and we AFFIRM the denial of the motion to suppress.3 AFFIRMED .
Exhibit 32.2








Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Erin D. Pickens, as Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:  July 15, 2009











/s/ Erin D. Pickens


Erin D. Pickens


Senior Vice President &


Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 35198)    
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 Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel; Biotechnology.                    

*Date:*                         August 17, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 9 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Democracy 1, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1070, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Martha F. Matocha, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Review, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza, Rm. 1070, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0810,                         *matocham@mail.nih.gov.*

(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: July 14, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-17208 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF 

JOSEPH ABRAHAM, JR. A/K/A 

JOSEPH (SIB) ABRAHAM, JR., 

DECEASED,

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00231-CV

Appeal from the

Probate Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2014-CPR02054)

O R D E R

The Court received and filed Appellee’s notice of disposition of William D. Abraham’s 

petition for review as requested in its order issued February 25, 2020. The appeal is therefore 

reinstated, and the Appellee’s brief is now due April 11, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.