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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q/A FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      19,434,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,917,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,572,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,354,000
<PP&E>                                      20,314,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,969,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,360,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,867,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       149,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,586,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                81,360,000
<SALES>                                     32,252,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,947,000
<CGS>                                        3,555,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,709,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,895,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               337,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             932,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,579,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,190,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,389,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,389,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


Exhibit 11

Statement Re: Computation of Loss per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Three Months Ended                    Six Months Ended
                                                   June 30, 1998    June 30, 1997       June 30, 1998     June 30, 1997
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
<S>                                               <C>               <C>                <C>                <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding              19,060          16,667                19,011            16,654
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
Net income (loss)                                  ($    5,600)       $    326          ($    10,103)      ($    3,467)
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
Basic net income (loss) per share                     ($  0.29)        $  0.02              ($  0.53)         ($  0.21)
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
Weighted average common shares outstanding              19,060          16,667                19,011            16,654
Weighted average common equivalent shares
 resulting from stock options and warrants                   -           1,298                     -                 -
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
Shares used to compute net loss per share               19,060          17,965                19,011            16,654
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
Net income (loss)                                  ($    5,600)       $    326          ($    10,103)      ($    3,467)
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
Diluted net income (loss) per share                   ($  0.29)        $  0.02              ($  0.53)         ($  0.21)
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------
                                                  ---------------   -------------      --------------     --------------

</TABLE>
February
24, 2010
 Frontier
Oil Corporation
 10000
Memorial Drive, Suite 600
 Houston,
Texas 77024-3411
 
 Dear
Sirs:
 
 We have
audited the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules
of Frontier Oil Corporation (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009, included
in your Annual Report on Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission and
have issued our report thereon dated February 24, 2010, which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the
Company’s change in its inventory valuation method for crude oil, unfinished
products, and finished products to the last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) method from
the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) method. Note 3 to such consolidated financial
statements contains a description of your adoption during the year ended
December 31, 2009 of the LIFO inventory valuation method. In our judgment, such
change is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the
circumstances.
 
 Yours
truly,
 
 DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 659 V

Filed: March 26, 2015

Not for P ublication

*************************************

TAMMY DURRE

, *

*

Petitioner

, *

*

* Damages decision based on stipulation;

v. * influenza (flu) vaccine; optic neuritis

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Edward M. Kraus

, Chicago, IL

, for petitioner

. Lara A. Englu n d , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On March 26, 2015 , the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle

this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner allege s that she suffered optic neuritis that

w as caused by her September 13, 2010 receipt of influenza (“flu ”) vaccine

. Petitioner further

allege s that she suffe r ed the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent

denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s optic neuritis, any other injury , or her current

condition

. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally

.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned exp lanation for the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify a nd

move to delete such information prior to the document ’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

delete such material from public access

.2

The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby

adopts the parties ’ said stipulation, attached her eto, and awards compensation in the amount and

o n the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of

$1,050 ,000.00

, representing reimbursement for all damages that would be available under 42

U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a) (2006). The award shall be in the form of a check payable to petitioner in the

amount of $1,0 50 ,000.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAFAEL SAEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 31 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

WILLIAM B. JOLLEY,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Respondent

______________________

2022

- 2061

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No s . SF

- 0752

- 13

- 0583

- M

- 1 and SF

- 0752

- 14

- 0286

- M

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) moves to waive Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. William B. Jolleyopposes and moves for sanctions against HUD and for summary disposition in his favor

. Fo r the following reasons,

w e grant HUD’s motion and dismiss. Case: 22-2061 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 06/07/2023JOLLEY v. HUD 2

“[A] petition to review a final order or final decision of

the [Merit Systems Protection ] Board shall be filed in theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

. . . within 60 days af ter the Board issues notice of thefinal order or decision.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This requirement is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” and thus cannot be waived or equitably tolled. Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot.

Bd. , 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017 ) (citation omitted). To be timely, the petition must actually be rece ived by the

court on or before this deadline , not just timely mail ed

. Id

. ;

see Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A).

Here, the Board issued notice of its final decision on May 20, 2022, ECF No. 2 at 52, and the court received

Mr. Jolley’s petition on Wednesday, July 20, 2022 ( 61 days

later ) , ECF No. 1

- 2 at 1 (stamped receipt date)

. Mr. Jolley provides a United States Postal Service receipt indicating that he mailed his pet ition on July 13, 2022 (54 days after

the notice), but as noted above, that does not constitute “filing” with the court. Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A). Nor is that receipt’s “ Estimated Delivery Date” of July 18, 2022 (59 days after the notice), ECF No. 26 at 14 (emphasis added) , sufficient to show actual delivery of the petition to
the court any earlier than the stamped date of July 20, 2022.

Accordingly, Case: 22-2061 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 06/07/2023JOLLEY v. HUD 3

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The petition for

review is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

(3) Any other pending motion is denied.

June 7 , 2023

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow Acting Clerk of Court Case: 22-2061 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 06/07/2023
#### SPENCER v. HITZ CONST. CO.

No. 1131.

United States District Court, D. Montana.

July 14, 1952.

Andrew G. Sutton and Joseph P. Hennessey, Billings, Mont., for plaintiff.

Rockwood Brown, Horace S. Davis, Ben N. Forbes, and Cale Crowley, Billings, Mont., for defendant.

PRAY, Chief Judge.

Motions supported by affidavits and briefs in the above cause have been submitted to the court for determination. On September 11th, 1950, the court sustained a motion of defendant in said cause and gave the plaintiff 30 days from receipt of notice in which to file an amended complaint. Nothing further appears to have been done in said cause by either side until October 22nd, 1951, when plaintiff filed his amended complaint, one year and eleven days after the expiration of the time fixed in the order of the court.

The next move in the case was made by defendant on October 26th, 1951, when a motion to dismiss and to strike was filed herein. On February 15th, 1952, plaintiff filed his motion, seeking an order of court, *360“nunc pro tunc,' pursuant to Rules 6(b), 15(a) and 43(e) enlarging the time to file amended complaint herein”, setting forth his excuses, supported by affidavit of his counsel, Andrew G. Sutton; the following day the latter counsel filed his “amended motion”, seeking the same relief but with the following changes in the rules relied upon: rules 6(b)(2), 15(a)(c), and 43(e) “of the U. S. District Court Rules of Circuit Procedure”, for enlarging the time to file amended complaint herein. On February 23rd, 1952, defendant’s motion resisting the motions of plaintiff was filed in this cause.

Briefs of counsel and affidavits and the files generally have been considered by the-court. No doubt counsel for defendant could have brought about the dismissal of the case after the expiration of the 30 days granted by the order of court for the filing of an amended complaint but no action was taken. Both sides appear to have been about equally blameable for the delay occasioned in this case. '

Having considered all of the matters presented by both sides, and being duly advised, and good cause appearing therefor, in the opinion of the court, the motion of defendant should be denied and leave granted to file an answer to the amended complaint within twenty .days after receipt of notice hereof, and such is the ruling of the court herein.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6781

WAYNE ELLIOTT WILKERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY, Secretary of Public Safety,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00158-WO-JLW)

Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: September 11, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Elliott Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Elliot Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Wilkerson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 

(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). Because it is possible that Wilkerson could cure the defects in his petition 

through amendment, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 

619, 623-25 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

IVAN MALDONADO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1691

[August 17, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St Lucie County; James W. McCann, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562011CF002677A.

Ivan Maldonado, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Discretionary Bonus Policy




 Exhibit 10.17 
 ATP OIL & GAS CORPORATION 
 DISCRETIONARY BONUS POLICY 
 PURPOSE: The purpose of the ATP Discretionary Bonus Policy is to share the success achieved by the Company with its employees who demonstrate exemplary
performance. If made, the Discretionary Bonus may be in addition to current compensation and an employee’s participation in any other benefits offered by ATP. 
 CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION: The Discretionary Bonus Policy applies to all employees of ATP (Eligible Employee) regardless of tenure, title or responsibility. 
 ADMINISTRATION OF THE DISCRETIONARY BONUS POLICY: Any and all bonuses to Eligible Employees under the Discretionary Bonus Policy are discretionary by the
President. 
 PAYMENTS: Payments to Eligible Employees will be made at the direction of the President and the Eligible Employee’s
immediate supervisor. If an employee leaves the employment of ATP, the Eligible Employee will cease to participate in the Discretionary Bonus Policy and forfeit any right to future distributions from this policy.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of Zale Corporation, certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2008, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Zale Corporation at the dates and for the
periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other
purpose.

This 26th day of September, 2008

By:

/s/ Rodney CarterRodney Carter
Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative
    Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer of the registrant)


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gulf Resources, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: May 14, 2007                               /s/ Min Li
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Min Li
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson E. Reasor, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  |                                      
|                      |  | /s/ JACKSON E. REASOR                
|                      |  | Jackson E. Reasor                    
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  | (Principal executive officer)        



24
No. 1093.

#### Cable et al. *v.*Walker, Postmaster General.

June 3, 1946.

*Jacob W. Friedman*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Assistant Attorney General Sonnett, Paul A. Sweeney*and *Abraham J. Harris*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied.