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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1989-C, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         65,174
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  54,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,589
<PP&E>                                         2,321,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,136,396)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 304,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,478
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     299,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   304,245
<SALES>                                        76,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               80,745
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  38,445<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,928
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,928
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,928
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0

<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation and
amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and interest expense.
</FN>


</TABLE>
H Uhi 75 VZLUS, rm»$»»»
«T "3» Bok 1336? bear Mr, tybel fycosba, C/e,^k:

ft }*tY\Ct\ flame /f fit* ceJare cerev^ed ab trKe \dSTBLLB LfwZZ Under ^U Rules of B 

### \joou\d like f®r you to be g$vi -sJo'.jtAd //fee &r you oJhuJ Pnc b» knaUJ ufh-ab X

n iCEIVED IN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS MAR 1 6 2015 Ab®SAcost®, Clerk

' Of. H&f JT fcfm€ €2fo<J C&ft \/€h

^ *ust&*?mT%~TZ0lv fOK X)7SCKITj0NBty RB:V%&ujXf few IU%€S do tttffc V^te bo cjycnt ex pefefwav. a olook^h nobcibfoto •&jAat7 tr'M peteftt** Is refusel CcUlrb Ur/H 0n &&-• at eleok&k /i&b&frfcto trJia-t dfront-%fi disc^nfefirtwry is gr*-nbed, eiVte*- 3*> -trKe p^mm ^f pfcrfey err- W Vke Caurb &n fas <?wn inffefofefv^ fe'kec&i^t k//M he Set> wr swbmissim*Ruts <£>%% ClstzVs Purxes 

### L%) d>o rt£us*i ordismissal* hOHn fc-Ke Co^rh refuse or dismisses &pcbito'a*, -the &l®rk utfH s&snd fe* fe"te 

### parties «*»*/ *** ^isafce Prosecattttg /f-t&vne/ a nabt'c* fafcrm/hg trie** idat isU. pe^ijim 

### '\,*S re/W^ *y JisrrxssetiyU clerk """***' 

## appeals clerk <\ certified Copy of teW ovder.

r cleric o-f tke. Cdvur* o# CriWwaA FWeaff ww 

### oiw6a.lt. deH but u*!\\ re*»&* ^iVft. "f>e^v<?^^^ fitWr docurne»vts • f/ted in ^W Cour* a*Cwvnh4 

### dU^ oronM;«v>9 )-eweu>. 2f trhz. Court gtn&^w ^iscrebi^vtcvry review, *A*. clerk uoU\ se^d feo#
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Diane M. Hudson

January 30, 1985

Case No. (Criminal) 44287

By JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK

This matter comes before me on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. After a review of the file, pleadings, and memoranda submitted to the Court, I find that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied but that evidence of the breath analysis performed by the Commonwealth should be suppressed.

Section 18.2-268(b) of the Code of Virginia provides that "if the arresting officer elects a breath test, then the arresting officer shall advise the accused in writing of the right to have a blood test at his own expense." The Notice of Right to Blood Test signed by the Accused informed her of her right to have a blood test performed at her own expense, as required by statute, but also added the conditional language "upon your release." Why this language was added to the form remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that the statute’s language creates an affirmative duty not limited by any conditional clause. The affirmative duty mandated by the statute makes little sense if, for example, an individual cannot make bail. Any blood test too removed in time from that of the arrest is devoid of probative value. To allow the Commonwealth’s interpretation, the right to a blood test under these circumstances would be rendered meaningless. While the Commonwealth’s argu*310ments are well taken, and I agree that problems concerning the care and handling of blood are procedural in nature; this procedural limitation applies to the actual blood taking process, not the substantive right involved here. The conditional language of the form, had the effect of depriving the Accused of her right to "call for evidence in (her) favor." Va. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8. *See also Winston*v. *Commonwealth,*188 Va. 386 (1948).

There was no evidence presented indicating any problem with the original arrest. For this reason, the arrest remains untainted by the subsequent violation, and the Commonwealth may go forward with other evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the results of the breath analysis, performed by the Commonwealth be suppressed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL VERDUZCO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

C. E. DUCART; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

G. KIMBREL,

Defendant. No. 20

- 17100

D.C. No. 4:18

- cv

- 04596

- JSW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Daniel Verduzco appeals pro se from the district

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is n ot precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 17100

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his health and safety

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Verduzco

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indif

ferent to his health in treating his July 27, 2016 tongue injury or

to his safely on August 17, 2016

. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994) ( a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “ knows of and

disregards an excessive ri sk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of

serious harm exists, and he [or she] must also draw the inference ”)

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Verduzco’s motion

to compel defendants to provide a copy of his deposition transcript. See Sopcak v.

N. Mountain Helicopter Serv ., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard of

review); Tedder v. Odel , 890 F.2d 210, 211

- 12 (9th Cir. 1989) (expenditure of

public funds on indigent litigants’ discovery fees not authorized by Congress).

AFFIRMED.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 NANCY SHANKS and ARTHUR SHANKS, 2 Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, 3
v. NO. 32,295 4 SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P., 5 d/b/a COTTONWOOD SHOPPING 6 MALL, FEDERAL BUILDING 7 SERVICES, INC. , 8 Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 10 Louis P. McDonald, District Judge 11 Peter Everett IV 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellants/Cross Appellees 14 Law Office of Marcus Garcia 15 Marcus E. Garcia 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellees/Cross Appellants 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION 19 VANZI, Judge. 202 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. 3 {2} AFFIRMED. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2960

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Rowland F. Zerba, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: January 17, 2018

Filed: January 19, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Rowland Zerba challenges the district court

1

order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 7-month sentence, followed by

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa.
2 years ofsupervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has submitted

a brief stating that Zerba believes the district court lacked authority to sentence him

to additional supervised release because 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), which specifically

allows for supervised release following revocation and reincarceration, was not in

effect at the time of his initial sentencing. 

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court had

authority to impose a term of supervised release following a revocation prison term. 

See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 713 (2000); United States v. Palmer, 380

F.3d 395, 396-97 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (standard of review). Accordingly, we

grant counsel leave to withdraw, and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2023) 1 

Statement of KAVANAUGH, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 23A315 

WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD., ET AL. v. DEBRA 

HAALAND, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY 

[October 25, 2023] 

The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE 

and by him referred to the Court is denied. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated. 

Statement of JUSTICE KAVANAUGH respecting the denial

of the application for stay. 

I agree that the stay application should be denied in light 

of the D. C. Circuit’s pronouncement that the compact between Florida and the Seminole Tribe authorizes the Tribe 

to conduct only on-reservation gaming operations, and not 

off-reservation gaming operations. 71 F. 4th 1059, 1062, 

1065–1068 (2023); Response in Opposition to Application

for Stay 7–10, 13–14. If the compact authorized the Tribe 

to conduct off-reservation gaming operations, either directly or by deeming off-reservation gaming operations to

somehow be on-reservation, then the compact would likely 

violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, as the District 

Court explained. 573 F. Supp. 3d 260, 272–274 (DC 2021);

see 25 U. S. C. §§2710(d)(1), (d)(8)(A). 

To the extent that a separate Florida statute (as distinct 

from the compact) authorizes the Seminole Tribe—and only 

the Seminole Tribe—to conduct certain off-reservation 

gaming operations in Florida, the state law raises serious 

equal protection issues. See Students for Fair Admissions, 

Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U. S. 

181, 206 (2023); Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 
 

2 WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. HAALAND 

Statement of KAVANAUGH, J. 

U. S. 200, 221–222 (1995). But the state law’s constitutionality is not squarely presented in this application, and the 

Florida Supreme Court is in any event currently considering state-law issues related to the Tribe’s potential off-reservation gaming operations.
<PAGE>
                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                         Service Systems International, Ltd.
                           Computation of Per-Share Income
                                Treasury Stock Method
                               As Modified for 20% Test


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Period Ended February 28, 1998
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                            Six Months
                                                            ----------
<S>                                               <C>
Weighted average number of shares outstanding               6,474,450
                                                           -----------
                                                           -----------

Total common and common equivalent shares                   7,678,168
                                                           -----------
                                                           -----------

Net income (loss) for the period                           $ (966,836)
                                                           -----------
                                                           -----------



Total common and common equivalent shares                   7,678,168
                                                           -----------
                                                           -----------

Loss per common and common equivalent shares               $    (0.15)
                                                           -----------
                                                           -----------
</TABLE>



Earnings per share:

The earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) for the
period by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the
period. Common stock equivalents are excluded from the computation if their
effect would be anti-dilutive.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Retrospettiva, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I, Borivoje Vukadinovic, the Company’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





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








Date:   May 11, 2011








/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic


Borivoje Vukadinovic,


Principal Executive Officer








/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic


Borivoje Vukadinovic,


Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                             561
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,760
<INVENTORY>                                     25,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,600
<PP&E>                                          10,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,933
<BONDS>                                         23,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,613
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,682
<SALES>                                        169,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,452
<CGS>                                          127,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   756
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,821
<INCOME-TAX>                                       789
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,032
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,032
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 1, 2021

NO. 03-19-00735-CV

Caleb Walsh, Appellant

v.

Carswell Cherokee Trust, by its trustee, W. Hampton Beesley, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 14, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<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>                                      31,164,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,157,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,262,972
<PP&E>                                       9,727,954
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,606,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,915,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,868,162
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,326
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,375,590
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,915,753
<SALES>                                      8,800,652
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,800,652
<CGS>                                       10,404,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,316,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               954,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             289,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,698,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,698,175)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,698,175)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.20)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          43,961
<SECURITIES>                                     2,105
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,094
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,159
<PP&E>                                         737,744
<DEPRECIATION>                                 170,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 673,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,875
<BONDS>                                        309,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     302,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   673,909
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               222,093
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 61,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             61,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    61,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.90<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.90
        
<FN>
<F1>Amount represents basic net income per Limited Partner
Unit under provisions of SFAS 128.
</FN>

</TABLE>
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 HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10K/A for the year
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norbert Sporns, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|Dated: July 1, 2008    
|                       
|/s/ Norbert Sporns     
|Norbert Sporns         
|Chief Executive Officer