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

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         454,675
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,033,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                   145,000
<INVENTORY>                                    5,035,884
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,690,513
<PP&E>                                         1,508,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,900,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,023,413
<BONDS>                                        2,294,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5483
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,021,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,900,565
<SALES>                                        17,198,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,198,587
<CGS>                                          15,796,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,086,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               567,562
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             297,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,549,698)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,549,698)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,549,698)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.**

 
| **Name**                         | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation/Organization** |
|----------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| **Subsidiary  Name**             | ** ** | **Country**                                     |
| MCTec  B.V.                      |       | Netherlands                                     |
| MCTec  Holding B.V.              |       | Netherlands                                     |
| Merit  Holdings, Inc.       |       | Utah                                            |
| Merit  Medical Austria GmbH      |       | Austria                                         |
| Merit  Medical Belgium B.V.B.A.  |       | Belgium                                         |
| Merit  Medical Denmark A/S       |       | Denmark                                         |
| Merit  Medical France SAS        |       | France                                          |
| Merit  Medical GmbH              |       | Germany                                         |
| Merit  Medical Ireland, Limited  |       | Ireland                                         |
| Merit  Medical Nederland B.V.    |       | Netherlands                                     |
| Merit  Medical Services, L.P.    |       | Utah                                            |
| Merit  Medical Systems AB        |       | Sweden                                          |
| Merit  Medical UK Limited        |       | United Kingdom                                  |
| Merit  Sensor Systems, Inc. |       | Utah                                            |
| Merit  Services, Inc.       |       | Utah                                            |

 

----
#### Christine Kopsachilis, Respondent, v 130 East 18 Owners Corp. et al., Appellants.

Submitted February 25, 2008;

decided March 13, 2008

Motion by Riverbay Corporation for leave to file a letter brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the letter brief is accepted as filed.
#### Cecelia WOLFF, Plaintiff, v. A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 85 C 07028.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

Aug. 12, 1985.

*1206Abraham Goldman, John R. Wylie, Abraham Goldman & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHADUR, District Judge.

Cecelia Wolff (“Wolff”) sues A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (“Robins”), two- of its principal shareholders and several other defendants under a number of theories, claiming damages from the use of Robins’ Daikon Shield intrauterine contraceptive device. Because Wolff’s Complaint does not establish the complete diversity of citizenship necessary for federal jurisdiction, this Court dismisses the Complaint sua sponte.

Wolff’s counsel has introduced several apparently inadvertent flaws into the Complaint:

> 1. Complaint 114 refers to the residence but *not*the state of citizenship of defendant Dr. Hugh Davis.

> 2. Complaint H 6 refers to the St. Margaret Hospital as “located in Hammond, Indiana” (which may be read broadly as, though it does not speak specifically of, its principal place of business), but it does *not*identify the Hospital’s place of incorporation.

> 3. Two named defendant doctors and two “John Doe” defendant doctors are not identified in citizenship terms at all.

> 4. Three “John Doe” defendant nurses are also not identified in citizenship terms.

All those omissions are odd, given the Complaint’s proper care in identifying the citizenship of Wolff, Robins and its two shareholder defendants. But oddity aside, the Complaint’s flaws are fatal.

Those pleading defects deprive this Court of independent subject matter jurisdiction over this action, for federal courts can deal with cases only as Congress specifies (see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and (c)) and as a plaintiff’s express allegations bring the case within those specifications. See, e.g., 5 Wright & Miller, *Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil*§ 1208, at 85 & n. 96, 87 & n. 99, and cases cited in both notes (1969 ed. and 1985 pocket part); 13 B *id.*§ 3611, at 516-18 & nn. 27-29, § 3624, at 610 & n. 20, and cases cited in all those notes (1984 ed. and 1985 pocket part).

Moreover the special problems posed by the John Doe defendants compound the error. Here the Doe defendants are real people whose identity is simply not yet known to Wolff — not hypothetical people who may or may not exist — and that independently defeats diversity. See *Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America,*446 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir.1970); *John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Central National Bank in Chicago,*555 F.Supp. 1026 (N.D.Ill.1983).

Accordingly the Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, subject to Wolff’s possible filing of a proper amended complaint to cure the jurisdictional defects on or before August 23, 1985 (see 28 U.S.C. § 1653). . By definition this dismissal is also without prejudice to Wolff’s possible filing of this action in a state court of competent jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


 <ARTICLE>                    5
        
 <S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                              Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                                     2,112,300
<SECURITIES>                                               3,004,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                                261,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                  451,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           6,311,428
<PP&E>                                                     1,011,782
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (337,813)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             7,463,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        809,133
<BONDS>                                                    1,600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                     291,062
<OTHER-SE>                                                 4,762,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               7,463,149
<SALES>                                                      358,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             359,908
<CGS>                                                        356,312
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              4,687,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            (157,788)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           136,091
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (4,306,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (4,306,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (4,306,140)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
                                          

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2475 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2475

To authorize a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction at Surf 
             City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2011

 Mr. McIntyre introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction at Surf 
             City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA.

    The Secretary of the Army is authorized to carry out a project for 
hurricane and storm damage reduction at Surf City and North Topsail 
Beach, North Carolina, substantially in accordance with, and subject to 
the conditions described in, the Surf City and North Topsail Beach, 
North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Report dated December 30, 
2010, at an estimated total cost of $353,924,000, for periodic beach 
nourishment and monitoring over the 50-year economic life of the 
project.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1
I, Richard K. Crump, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 10, 2004    /s/ RICHARD K. CRUMP  Richard K. Crump President and Chief Executive Officer
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and
Chairman of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc, a Delaware corporation, hereby makes the
following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2007.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in
all respects, the financial condition of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. and results of
its operations.

Date: July 31, 2008/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1





                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-64167) pertaining to the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-57781) pertaining to the 1997 Stock
Option Plan and the 1998 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Election Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-88426 and No. 333-27835) pertaining to
the 1994 Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-27831) pertaining to the 1996 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan and
the 1992 Outside Directors' Director Stock Unit Plan, of GTECH Holdings
Corporation of our report dated March 27, 2000, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of GTECH Holdings Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended February 26, 2000.



                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
May 1, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,269
<PP&E>                                       2,466,082
<DEPRECIATION>                               (114,910)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,463,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,367
<BONDS>                                        968,791
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           633
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,380,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,463,738
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,389
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,163
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,044
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,044
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78


</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00034

- CR

Larry Gene Sewell

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (0248756D)

May 21, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dism issed for

want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### Jeremiah G. McNEICE v. OIL CARRIERS JOINT VENTURE and Orion Shipping & Trading Co., Inc.

Civ. A. No. 22180.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 27, 1958.

Philip Dorfman, Dorfman, Pechner, Sacks *&*Dorfman, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Timothy Jay Mahoney, Jr., Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

EGAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s objections to interrogatories filed by the plaintiff. Specifically, the defendant maintains that the information sought is privileged under the rulings of Hickman v. Taylor, 1947, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 and Alltmont v. United States, 3 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 971.

As enunciated in many decisions, the party moving for discovery should be entitled to know upon what facts the other party is basing his allegations or defenses. Prescan v. Aliquippa & Southern R. Co., D.C.W.D.Pa.1954, 16 F.R.D. 272; Forsythe v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., D.C.W.D.Pa.1954, 15 F.R.D. 191; Furmanek v. Southern Trading Co., D.C.E.D. Pa.1953, 15 F.R.D. 405. The interrogatories before the Court at this time are directed to such an end and therefore are proper in this respect.

The only remaining question is whether or not the answers to the interrogatories are privileged under the Hickman and Alltmont decisions. It seems manifest to us that in order to seek the protection offered by these cases, the objecting party must convince the Court that the information sought is contained in such statements which fall into the “privileged” category. The precise point was before Judge Welsh in Hazell v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1953, 15 F.R.D. 282, at page 284, at which time he stated:

> “* * * whether information sought by interrogatories does or does not constitute texts or résumés of statements must be determined by this Court. In the present case we think the defendant has failed to show that the information sought constitutes texts or résumés *15of statements. The burden of proving the foregoing, we think, must be on the objecting party, otherwise discovery by interrogatories under Rule 33 in personal injury actions could be thwarted by embodying the entire account of the accident in written statements and by merely stating same to the Court.”

The record before the Court is barren of any evidence supporting the contention that the information sought is contained in privileged statements. The only clue to defendant’s position can be found in their reliance on the Hickman and Alltmont decisions. Without more, this Court cannot sustain the objections.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the defendant answer the propounded interrogatories within 15 days.
EX-35.12

(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement
dated as of July 1, 2013, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE
SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE
LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator, and Custodian, and U.S.
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-LC12 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms
used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the
Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive
Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from
   July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and
   of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made
   under my supervision, and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of
the 7th day of March 2014.


/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far