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


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                                2,158,855
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            12,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      2,229,339
<PP&E>                                                                  409,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                                          223,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        2,666,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   115,730
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                  4,285
<OTHER-SE>                                                            2,546,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          2,666,269
<SALES>                                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                          5,250
<CGS>                                                                       985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           460,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (424,052)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    (424,052)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           (424,052)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                              (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              (.10)



</TABLE>
#### Paul CHORBAJIAN, as President and on behalf of AOA Chapter, Flight Engineers International Union, American Federation of Labor, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, Inc., Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Sept. 26, 1956.

. Daniel Kornblum, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly & Hamilton, New York City, for defendant.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

The plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in their favor, presumably made under F.R.Civ.P. 12(c), 28 U.S. C.A. or in the alternative for partial summary judgment, presumably made under F.R.Civ.P. 56(d) (which movants have themselves variously characterized as a “motion declaring the defendant’s liability” and as a quest for “a definitive decision on the limited questions of civil liabilty”) is denied for the same reasons that this court denied a similar motion in United States v. Copacabana, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 17 F.R.D. 297.

To enlarge upon what was there said, I can see no gainful result in piecemeal-adjudication of this cause. Even were I to hold that plaintiffs have the partial relief sought, a trial of the amount of damages due each plaintiff would still have to be held. The judge presiding thereat should not be confined by' the *322findings of fact which I would be required to make if this motion were granted. Such confinement would necessarily flow from the last sentence of F. R.Civ.P. 56(d).

Adequate relief in narrowing the issues may be obtained by pre-trial. I am indisposed to substitute partial summary judgment for that process.

It is so ordered.
Exhibit 23.1



                Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C. Letterhead



          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January
13, 2005, except for Note 2, as to which the date is July 19, 2005, with
respect in Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-115433) and
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-50371) to the consolidated
balance sheets of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. and Subsidiary as of December 31,
2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes
in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-
year period ended December 31, 2004 which report appears in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 of Slade's Ferry
Bancorp.

                                       /s/ Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.

                                       SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
August 15, 2005


<PAGE>
[939 NYS2d 689]

#### Micheal Ardelean, Plaintiff, v Susan S. Affuso et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Queens County,

February 24, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mendolia & Stenz,*Westbury *(Brian Murray*of counsel), for defendants. *Rubenstein & Rynecki,*Brooklyn *(Robert Mijuca*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bernice D. Siegal, J.

It is hereby ordered that the motion is resolved as follows:

*429Defendants move for an order compelling plaintiff to produce a supplemental demand setting forth the total damages to which the plaintiff deems himself entitled. CPLR 3017 (c) prohibits, in both an action for personal injury and wrongful death, the plaintiff from specifying a money figure in the pleadings unless the

> “party against whom an action to recover damages for personal injuries . . . request [s] a supplemental demand setting forth the total damages to which the pleader deems himself entitled. A supplemental demand shall be provided by the party bringing the action within fifteen days of the request. In the event the supplemental demand is not served within fifteen days, the court, on motion, may order that it be served.”

Plaintiff, in opposition, attaches his response to defendants’ request wherein plaintiff states that “[a] jury will decide the total damages to which the Plaintiff is entitled to at the time of trial.”

Plaintiffs response to defendants’ request is insufficient to meet his burden. As an initial matter, the court notes that prior to the passage of CPLR 3017 (c), money demands were required as part of the ad damnum clause of a pleading. The abandonment of the requirement for specificity in the initiatory pleading was in response to “inflated demands [which] led to local publicity damaging to the physician’s reputation, although the case could prove wholly baseless.” (Siegel, NY Prac § 217 [5th ed].) All that is required (and permitted) is a statement that the amount sought exceeds the jurisdiction of the lower courts. *(Id.)*Critically, a specific figure may in fact be required but may only be specified upon motion as provided for in CPLR 3017. *(See Moltner v Starbucks Coffee Co.,*2009 WL 510879, 2009 US Dist LEXIS 15518 [SD NY 2009] [holding that a demand made pursuant to CPLR 3017 (c) may be used to determine the amount in controversy for removal to federal court].) While no such exigency applies to the matter herein, the plain language of the statute requires that plaintiff provide a specific sum when met with a demand from defendants.

For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion seeking an order pursuant to CPLR 3017 (c) compelling the plaintiff to supply a supplemental demand setting forth the total damages to which plaintiff deems himself entitled is granted.
#### Viola JONES, Administratrix of the Estate of Deighton W. Jones, deceased, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant.

Civ. No. 129 L.

United States. District Court D. Nebraska.

March 25, 1958.

*573Frank B. Morrison (Doyle, Morrison & Doyle), Lincoln, Neb., for plaintiff.

R. D. Neely (Neely, Otis & Neely), Omaha, Neb., for defendant.

VAN PELT, District Judge.

The complaint herein was filed January 31, 1958. It sets forth a cause of action for damages because of the alleged wrongful death of the deceased and alleges that the widow and a daughter were the sole next of kin. The death is alleged to have occurred February 24,1955 at Fremont, Nebraska, as a result of an accident on that date, for which it is claimed the defendant was responsible. There is also set forth a cause of action for property damage.

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and specifically stating that the complaint shows the action was not brought within two years after the cause of action accrued as prescribed by Section 30-810, Revised Statutes of Nebraska, 1943.

The Nebraska statutes creating a cause of action for wrongful death, in the section above mentioned, provide in part: “Every such action * * * shall be commenced within two years after the death of such person”.

Concededly, the action was not brought within that time. The only question is whether the matter can be raised by a motion to dismiss under Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 12(b) (6), 28 U.S.C.A., or whether the statute has to be affirmatively pleaded under Rule 8 (c). The motion in this case did not include a motion for summary judgment.

It is the Court’s conclusion that where the complaint shows on its face that the action has not been instituted within the statutory period and where there is no genuine factual controversy as to the availability of such affirmative defense, the issue may be resolved upon a motion to dismiss. See Rohner v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 10 Cir., 225 F.2d 272, cited by defendant. There is authority within this Circuit for this conclusion in Brietson v. Woodrough, 8 Cir., 164 F.2d 107 (certiorari denied 334 U.S. 849, 68 S.Ct. 1500, 92 L.Ed. 1772), wherein it is said:

> “Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, where it affirmatively appears on the face of the complaint that the action is barred by limitations, and no facts are alleged to avoid the bar of the statute, the defense may be raised by motion to dismiss.” 164 F.2d at pages 110, 111.

An Order will this day be entered dismissing the action.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

___________________

NO. 09-17-00028-CV

___________________

IN THE ESTATE OF RUFUS JENNINGS HOLT

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. P16967A

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion to abate this appeal, representing that the parties 

have reached a settlement agreement and that, as soon as the parties can file the 

appropriate motions in the trial court, appellant will file a motion to dismiss the 

appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion, abate the appeal, and permit proceedings 

in the trial court to effectuate the parties’ agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.1(a)(2)(C). 

The appeal shall be abated until the appellant files a motion to reinstate and 

dismiss the appeal, which shall be accomplished by no later than May 14, 2018. If a
2

motion is not filed by that date, the appeal will be reinstated and submitted to the 

Court without oral argument. 

ORDER ENTERED March 14, 2018.

PER CURIAM

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2635 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to suspend the Presidential $1 

Coin Program when coin stockpiles are sufficient to meet the needs 

for one year, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2011 

Mr. POLIS (for himself and Ms. SPEIER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to suspend the 

Presidential $1 Coin Program when coin stockpiles are 

sufficient to meet the needs for one year, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Cutting Out Inefficient 

5 and Needless Spending Act of 2011’’ or the ‘‘COINS Act 

6 of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2635 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF PRESIDENTIAL $1 COIN PROGRAM 

2 DURING SURPLUS. 

3 Section 5112(n)(8) of title 31, United States Code, 

4 is amended by adding on the end the following: ‘‘The Sec5 retary shall suspend issuance of coins under this sub6 section during any period for which the Secretary deter7 mines that the surplus supply of $1 coins exceeds the rea8 sonable circulation needs for one year.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF UNMIXED SUPPLIES REQUIREMENT. 

10 Section 5112(p)(3)(D) of title 31, United States 

11 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘ensuring that’’ and all that 

12 follows through ‘‘(ii) circulating coins’’ and inserting the 

13 following: ‘‘ensuring that circulating coins’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JASHUA DANIEL, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 5D17-2006

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 4, 2017

Petition for Belated Appeal

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Jashua Daniel, Jasper, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General 

Tallahassee, and, Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the July 29, 2016, 

judgment and sentence in Case No. 2015-CF-8265-B, in the Circuit Court in and for

Orange County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED. 

SAWAYA, PALMER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Order entered November 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01017-CV

KALA DHARMA, Appellant

V.

WHITLEY PENN, LLP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-12551

ORDER

We GRANT court reporter Tanner Joy Feast’s November 17, 2015 motion to extend 

time to file the reporter’s record and ORDER the record be filed no later than December 17, 

2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
21





SUBSIDIARIES
OF ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC




Bright
Star Footwear LLC


a New
Jersey limited liability company





Badgley
Mischka Licensing LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company





IP
Holdings and Management Corporation


a
Delaware corporation





IP
Holdings LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company





IP
Management LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company





Licensing
Acquisition Corp.


a
Delaware corporation





Michael
Caruso & Co., Inc.


a
California corporation





Naxford
Trading S.A. (inactive)


a Uruguay
corporation





Ponca,
Ltd. (inactive)


a Hong
Kong corporation





Showroom
Holding Co., Inc.


a New
York corporation





Unzipped
Apparel LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company





Yulong
Company Limited (inactive)


a British
Virgin Islands corporation





Mossimo
Holdings LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company





Mossimo,
Inc.


a
Delaware corporation





Mossimo
Management LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company





OP
Holdings LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company




OP
Holdings and Management Corporation


a
Delaware corporation





Studio IP
Holdings LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company





Studio
Holdings and Management Corporation


a
Delaware corporation





Official
Pillowtex LLC


a
Delaware limited liability company





Pillowtex
Holdings and Management LLC


a
Delaware corporation
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Onyx Software
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian
C. Henry, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 results of operations of
      the Company.

August 11, 2003             /s/    Brian C. Henry
---------------------       ----------------------------------------------------
Date                        Brian C. Henry
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
31.1  CERTIFICATION  I, Peter A. Dea, certify
that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Western Gas Resources,
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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control 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 financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data; and  b)Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Dated: March 9, 2004Peter
  A. DeaPeter A. DeaPresident and Chief
  Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2I, John R. Beaver, 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 untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007       /s/ JOHN R. BEAVER John R. Beaver