alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GORDON, WOLF, COWEN CO., Inc. v. INDEPENDENT HALVAH & CANDIES, Inc.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Oct. 22, 1952.

*507Paskus, Gordon & Hyman, New York City, for plaintiff. Charles H. Lieb and Louis B. Resnick, New York City, of counsel.

Rosenman, Goldmark, Colin & Kaye, New York City, for defendant. Godfrey Gold-mark and Milton Adler, New York City, of counsel.

CONGER, District Judge.

Defendant’s objections to the interrogatories served on August 21, 1952 are overruled in part.

It is true that the courts frequently sustain objections to interrogatories which call for opinions, conclusions or contentions. See Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed. V. 4, pages 2303-4 and cases cited. But the rule is not inflexible. Moore, supra, page 2308 et seq.

Interrogatory No. 1—-The defendant has answered a prior and similar interrogatory to the effect that it “did not keep any records which segregated its manufacturing and selling costs for its halvah sales from its total sales, and defendant, therefore, does not know and cannot state what its manufacturing and selling costs were for its halvah sales only. Assuming, but without having any accurate knowledge thereof * * * ” that a certain ratio exists, then its costs would be certain amounts shown in “Exhibit B”. Now, it seems to me that the plaintiff would be terribly prejudiced if the defendant submitted an elaborate and complicated solution on the trial in view of its prior response.

If defendant at the trial intends to rely on its previous answer let it say so. If, however, it has a new formula or a new set of figures which it contends represents its cost of manufacturing, etc. of halvah between the dates mentioned, then it should give this information to the plaintiff.

Defendant need not answer the last part of this interrogatory which reads “ * * * and state how such costs have been determined”. This is too general a question unless it means a breakdown of the figures. This information was asked for in plaintiff’s original interrogatory II D and defendant’s objections to this item was sustained by Judge Kaufman of this court.

Interrogatory No. 2—It appears that defendant obtained this same type of information from plaintiff as to defendant’s business. I see no reason why plaintiff should not have the same relief against defendant.

In its moving papers herein defendant (objection to plaintiff’s further interrogatories, page 3, PP 2) states (referring to this interrogatory) “The information requested by this item has been set forth by plaintiff in answer to defendant’s interrogatory as to this identical item”. If this is so and defendant is relying on those figures it should so state but to prevent misunderstanding it should give the figures. If it relies on any other figures this should be stated.

Interrogatories No. 3 and No. 4 should be answered if defendant has the information.

Settle order in accordance with the foregoing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      11,400,986
<SECURITIES>                                39,159,386
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,920,753
<PP&E>                                       8,985,378
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,466,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,615,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,644,688
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        51,977
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,597,773
<PREFERRED>                                  4,077,258
<OTHER-SE>                                  45,131,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,615,271
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,950,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,788,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,404,249)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,404,249)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,404,249)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.59)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>         
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS       
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                     143,994
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              413,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,104
<INVENTORY>                                322,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           944,045
<PP&E>                                   1,398,262
<DEPRECIATION>                             586,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,772,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      694,465
<BONDS>                                    683,830
<COMMON>                                   282,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      7
<OTHER-SE>                                 721,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,772,444
<SALES>                                  1,985,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,000,181
<CGS>                                    1,651,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,651,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,615
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          43,689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            160,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                60,458
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        100,346
<DISCONTINUED>                               4,049
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               104,445
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.84
        




</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

                         SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)




                                       Three months ended March 31,
                                         2005               2004
                                         ----               ----
                                       (Restated)
Basic earnings:

Net loss                             $     (652,284)   $     (148,280)
                                     ==============    ==============

Shares:
Weighted common shares outstanding
                                         30,565,256        30,509,700
                                     ==============    ==============

Basic and diluted loss per share
                                     $        (0.02)   $        (0.01)
                                     ==============    ==============
Amendment to Offer Letter - Hsiao D. Lieu



 EXHIBIT 10.19 
  

					
	 


	 	 115 Sansome Street, Suite #310
 San Francisco, California 94104
	  	 (415) 415-7880 Tel.
 (415) 875-7075 Fax


 10 March 2009 
 Hsiao D. Lieu, M.D., F.A.C.C. 
 2415 Hale Drive 
 Burlingame, CA 94010 
  

	Re:	Amendment to Offer Letter 

 Dear Hsiao: 
 Nile Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to offer an amendment to your current terms of employment as set forth in that offer letter
dated February 22, 2008, as amended to date (the “Existing Offer Letter”). Effective upon your agreement with the terms of this letter, the paragraph in the Existing Offer Letter beginning with “For purposes of this letter, a
‘Change in Control’ shall mean . . .” shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 For purposes of this
letter, a “Change in Control” shall mean a transaction or series of transactions (other than an offering of the Company’s stock to the general public through a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission)
whereby any “person” or related “group” of “persons” (as such terms are used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) (other than the Company, any
of its subsidiaries, an employee benefit plan maintained by the Company or any of its subsidiaries or a “person” that, prior to such transaction, directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the
Company) directly or indirectly acquires beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 under the Exchange Act) of securities of the Company possessing more than 50% of the total combined voting power of the Company’s securities
outstanding immediately after such acquisition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no transaction shall be considered a Change of Control for the purposes of this letter: (A) if the stockholders existing prior to such transaction(s) hold in the
aggregate more than fifty percent (50%) of the securities or assets of the surviving or resulting company; or (B) in connection with a private placement of equity securities of the Company in connection with a financing of the
Company’s on-going operations. 
 While the Existing Offer Letter with be amended and restated as set forth above, the remainder of your
Existing Offer Letter shall otherwise remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Please indicate your agreement with these terms by signing and dating the enclosed duplicated original of this letter agreement and returning it to me. 

 

			
	Sincerely,
	
	Nile Therapeutics, Inc.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Peter Strumph
		 	Peter Strumph
		 	Chief Executive Officer


 I have read and accept this amendment to my Existing Offer Letter: 
  

					
	Date: 3-10-2009	 		 	/s/ Hsiao D. Lieu

  

 Page 1
No. 99-50191

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50191

Summary Calendar

 

RAMON RICARTE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-98-CV-43

- - - - - - - - - -

May 19, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramon Ricarte was granted a certificate of appealability

(COA) to appeal the issues whether the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) improperly

circumscribes federal habeas review of state court fact findings

and conclusions of law and whether prosecution witness Fred Zain

was a member of the prosecution team for purposes of imputing 

knowledge of Zain’s alleged perjury to the prosecution. The

motion by amicus curiae for leave to file out of time motion to
No. 99-50191

-2-

file amicus curiae brief is DENIED. Appellee’s motion to strike

amicus curiae’s motion to file out of time motion to file amicus

brief is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.

We have previously held that the AEDPA’s standards of review

are not unconstitutional. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607,

612 (5th Cir. 1999); Corwin v. Johnson, 150 F.3d 467, 471-72 (5th

Cir. 1998). We need not reach the issue whether Zain is a member

of the prosecution team given the district court’s ruling that

Ricarte had failed to show that Zain’s conclusion was factually

inaccurate and that Zain’s testimony was material to the outcome

and given that Ricarte has not obtained a COA to appeal these

issues. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying

Ricarte’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is AFFIRMED.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00134

- CV

IN RE WESLEY P. SCHN ELL RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TRIAL COURT NO. A262 8651

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------
The court has considered relator’s p etition for writ of mandamus and is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GARDNER

, and GABRIEL , JJ.

DELIVERED: April 30, 2015

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4

, 52.8 (d).
**EXHIBIT 31(ii) **Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)  Certification of Mr. Reuben Gamoran 
I, Reuben Gamoran, certify that:
1.
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company;
2.
Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement 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 Annual Report;
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;
4.
The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the Company, and we have:   
(a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Annual Report is being prepared; 
(b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Annual Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and 
(c)
presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.
5.
The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 
(a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 
(b)
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's control; and
6.
The Company's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this Annual Report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  
Date:  April  16, 2004 
/s/ REUBEN GAMORAN                            
Reuben Gamoran****
Page Reference

Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants                  18

Consolidated Balance Sheet at October 31, 1998                      19

Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Years Ended 
   October 31, 1998 and 1997                                        20

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended
   October 31, 1998 and 1997                                        21

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements                      22-33



             Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Wiltek, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Wiltek, Inc.
and Subsidiary (the "Company") as of October 31, 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for each of the two
years then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the 
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free 
of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and 
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Wiltek, 
Inc. and Subsidiary as of October 31, 1998, and the consolidated results of
their operations and their consolidated cash flows for each of the two 
years then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting 
principles.



GRANT THORNTON LLP
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
DECEMBER 29, 1998
No. 627.

#### Howard Hall Co., Inc. *v.*United States et al.

Argued April 30 and May 1, 1946.

Decided May 6, 1946.

*Harold G. Hernly*argued the cause for appellant.

With him on the brief was *James W. Wrape. Daniel W. Knowlton*argued the cause for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission, appellees.

With him on the brief were *Solicitor General McGrath, Assistant Attorney General Berge, Edward Dumbauld, David O. Mathews, Nelson Thomas*and *Allen Crenshaw.*

*Per Curiam:*

The judgment is affirmed. *Alton R. Co.*v. *United States,*315 U. S. 15; *United States*v. *Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.,*315 U. S. 475; *Howard Hall Co.*v. *United States,*315 U. S. 495.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Markethy McClellan, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[856 NYS2d 350]

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, *1202upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 [3]), defendant contends that County Court failed to engage in an adequate colloquy to ensure that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing and voluntary *(see generally People v McQuiller,*19 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2005], *lv denied 5*NY3d 808 [2005]; *People v Brown,*296 AD2d 860 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 767 [2002]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal is invalid and thus does not encompass his challenge to the court’s refusal to adjudicate him a youthful offender, we nevertheless reject that challenge *(see*CPL 720.20 [1] [a]; *People v McDaniels,*19 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 830 [2005]; *People v Potter,*13 AD3d 1191 [2004], *lv denied 4*NY3d 889 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Gale E. Klappa, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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.

/s/ Gale E. Klappa          
Gale E. Klappa
Chief Executive Officer
March 8, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Wisconsin Electric Power Company and will be retained by Wisconsin Electric Power Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of E-Sync Networks, Inc.;

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
E-Sync Networks, Inc., Nos. 33-7271 and 333-92933 on Form S-8, of our reports
dated April 11, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of E-Sync
Networks, Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and the related consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows and for each of
the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2000 which reports are
included in the annual report on Form 10-K.



KPMG LLP


New York, New York
September 6, 2001
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3372 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a partial 

exclusion from the excise tax imposed on heavy trucks sold at retail 

for alternative fuel trucks. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

Mr. CASSIDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for a partial exclusion from the excise tax imposed on 

heavy trucks sold at retail for alternative fuel trucks. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Natural Gas Truck 

5 Tax Parity Act of 2016’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3372 IS

1 SEC. 2. PARTIAL EXCLUSION FROM EXCISE TAX IMPOSED 

2 ON HEAVY TRUCKS SOLD AT RETAIL FOR AL3 TERNATIVE FUEL TRUCKS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4051(a) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating para6 graph (5) as paragraph (6) and by inserting after para7 graph (4) the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(5) PARTIAL EXCLUSION FOR ALTERNATIVE

9 FUEL TRUCKS.— 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

11 automobile truck chassis, automobile truck 

12 body, or tractor subject to tax under paragraph 

13 (1) which is fueled wholly or partially by an al14 ternative fuel, the rate of tax shall be reduced 

15 by 35 percent. 

16 ‘‘(B) ALTERNATIVE FUEL.—For purposes 

17 of subparagraph (A), the term ‘alternative fuel’ 

18 means compressed natural gas, liquefied natural 

19 gas, liquefied petroleum gas, renewable natural 

20 gas, hydrogen, and any liquid at least 85 per21 cent of the volume of which consists of meth22 anol.’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

24 subsection (a) shall apply to sales after the date of the 

25 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS