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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED   CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  INCLUDED  IN  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001016439
<NAME>                        INTELLIGROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,638
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                   661
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,836
<PP&E>                                         3,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                 425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 32,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,651
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       118
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   32,758
<SALES>                                        34,893
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               34,893
<CGS>                                          24,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (122)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,249
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,245
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,004
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,004
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.18
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.C.K.S., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.S., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 335 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.

- C.K.S., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: K.S., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 336 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of January, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Milagros Garcia, Respondent, v La Fortuna Restaurant, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[987 NYS2d 136]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered April 8, 2013, which denied the motion of defendants La Fortuna Restaurant, Inc. and Raymond Portoreal for leave to renew the prior order, same court and Justice, entered December 20, 2011, granting plaintiffs motion to strike their answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On a prior appeal, we affirmed the motion court’s order striking defendants La Fortuna Restaurant and Portoreal’s answer (102 AD3d 638 [1st Dept 2013]). The motion court properly determined that the transcript of Portoreal’s partial deposition and his affidavit explaining the reason for his failure to appear for a continued deposition are not new facts that could not have been offered on the prior motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]). In any event, the alleged new facts, even if considered, would not have changed the prior determination *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *Burgess v Charles H. Greenthal Mgt. Corp.,*37 AD3d 151 [1st Dept 2007]). Indeed, Portoreal only attempts to excuse his failure to appear for a continued deposition on December 12, 2011, based upon a conflict which he had not reported to his attorneys, and does not address his earlier failures to appear in defiance of three court orders.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Gische and Clark, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, DavidE. Kennedy, President and Chief Executive Officer of Susquehanna Media Co., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 ofSusquehanna Media Co.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing 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 affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated: August 17, 2005 /s/ David E. Kennedy   David E. Kennedy   President andChief Executive Officer
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ OPTOLUM, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. CREE, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________ 2022

- 1511

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in No. 1:17

- cv - 00687

- WO

- JLW, Judge William L. Osteen , Jr.

______________________ Decided: June 12, 2023

______________________ L EIGH J OHN M ARTINSON , McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by L EAH R. M C C OY ; J ACOB S TEVEN W HARTON , Womble Bond Dickinson LLP, Winston

- Salem, NC.
B LANEY H ARPER , Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by E DWIN G ARCIA ; P ETER D ANIEL S IDDOWAY , Sage Patent Group, Raleigh, NC.

______________________ Case: 22-1511 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2023OPTOLUM , INC

. v. CREE , INC

. 2

Before L OURIE , T ARANTO , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. OptoLum, Inc. (“Op toLum”) asks us to reverse a district court decision finding prosecution history disclaimerand estoppel, in addition to excluding certain expert testimony. Although there is room for debate regarding the statements made during prosecution that sit at the core of this case, prosecution history disclaimer and estoppel are legal questions on which we agree with the district court. We have considered OptoLum’s remaining arguments butfind them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the distr ict court is affirmed

. AFFIRMED Case: 22-1511 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2023
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                              L Q CORPORATION, INC.
                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 L Q Corporation, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sebastian E.
Cassetta, 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 results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: August 14, 2006

                                        /s/ Sebastian E. Cassetta
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Sebastian E. Cassetta
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                       23
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7170

LEROY WILLIAMSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02242-FL)

Submitted: February 28, 2019 Decided: March 12, 2019

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Williamson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Williamson v. Andrews, No. 5:16-hc-02242-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2018). 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. 

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS UNAUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATION AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                       6,355,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,536,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  230,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (15,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    171,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,625,000
<PP&E>                                       5,165,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (771,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,653,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,512,000
<BONDS>                                         86,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,904,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,653,000
<SALES>                                      7,566,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,081,000
<CGS>                                        2,675,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,137,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               349,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             197,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                723,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   151,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            572,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   572,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

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

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 6, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00402

- CR

Charles L. Sumrall , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA , AN D THEOFANIS MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court ho lds that there was no error in the court’s

judgment requiring reversal

. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction.

Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Sumrall ’ s pleas to the

enhancement paragr ap hs were “ TRUE ” and that the s tatute for the offense was sectio n

4 8 1.115 ( b) of the Texas Health a nd Safety C ode

. The judgment, as modified , is affirmed

.

Because appellant is indigent and u nable to p ay costs, no adjudica t i on of cost s is made.
#### GARDNER HEIGHTS HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC. *v.*RICHARD J. KOROLYSHUN ET AL.

(AC 30097)

Bishop, Gruendel and Harper, Js.

Argued September 25

officially released October 27, *2009*

*746
      *Noah J. Schafler,*for the appellant (named defendant).

*Mark S. Shipman,*with whom, on the brief, were *Rachel Kittredge Shipman*and *Mary Catherine Cur-ran,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Richard J. Korolyshun1 appeals from the order of the trial court denying his motion for attorney’s fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On March 19,2003, the defendant was appointed conservator of the estate of Jean Bartolucci, who was a patient at the plaintiff health care facility, Gardner Heights Health Care Center, Inc. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America (Travelers) issued a bond to the Probate Court to guarantee the defendant’s performance as a conservator. Subsequently, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant and Travelers, claiming that the defendant breached his fiduciary duties while acting as Bartolucci’s conservator by, among other things, failing to obtain medicaid benefits for Bartolucci. The plaintiff also alleged that Travelers was liable as surety under the bond. The court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and Travelers.

Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb, which provides in relevant part that “[wjhenever any contract ... to which a consumer is a party, provides for the attorney’s fee of the commercial party to be paid by the consumer, an attorney’s fee shall be awarded as a matter of law to the consumer who successfully . . . defends an action . . . *based upon the contract*
      *747. . . .” (Emphasis added.) The underlying action here, however, was not such a contract action but was a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, which is a tort claim. See *Ahem*v. *Kappalumakkel,*97 Conn. App. 189, 192 n.3, 903 A.2d 266 (2006). Accordingly, because § 42-150bb is not applicable to the action at hand, the court properly denied the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.

The judgment is affirmed.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America (Travelers) was also a defendant in this case. Because Travelers is not a party to this appeal, we refer to Korolyshun as the defendant in this opinion.
(19) I947A 4N;to cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge Turco & Draskovich Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk Marisela L. Ponce

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

m 00-41264

_______________

JAMES PALMER NEILL, III, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

JAMES PALMER NEILL, III; JODY AYKE; MARC ANDREW BIRENBAUM;

WILLIAM BUTLER; CHERYL BUTLER; et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

FORD MOTOR COMPANY; DAVID J. BICKERSTAFF;

DAVID J. BICKERSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

m 5:99-CV-106

_________________________

November 13, 2001
* District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

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

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and CUMMINGS,*

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

Plaintiffs bring an action they describe as fraud in the

inducement of various settlement agreements regarding litigation in

state courts. They appeal the district court’s dismissal, which

was based on considerations of comity and the Anti-Injunction Act.

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable portions of the record

and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing.

Accordingly, we affirm, without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ right

to file bills of review in the respective state courts. See

Dubroff v. Dubroff, 883 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2943 

To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal 

use, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2009 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

ROHRABACHER, and Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of 

marijuana for personal use, 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 ‘‘Personal Use of Mari5 juana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2943 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN MARIJUANA-RELATED 

2 PENALTIES. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no pen4 alty may be imposed under an Act of Congress for the 

5 possession of marijuana for personal use, or for the not6 for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for per7 sonal use. For the purposes of this section, possession of 

8 100 grams or less of marijuana shall be presumed to be 

9 for personal use, as shall the not-for-profit transfer of one 

10 ounce or less of marijuana, except that the civil penalty 

11 provided in section 405 of the Controlled Substances Act 

12 (21 U.S.C. 844a) may be imposed for the public use of 

13 marijuana if the amount of the penalty does not exceed 

14 $100. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
**Exhibit 10.61**July 18, 2005Luis WoodDear Luis,**RE: Employee Share Incentive Plan and Employee Share Option Plan**In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan (“the Preference Share Plan”), you are herebyadvised that the Grant Date is July 14, 2005 for benefits you have accrued during the year ended 31December 2004.Accordingly you are granted 48 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the option to purchasean equal number of Preference Shares at a price of US$18.31 or CI$15.26 each, which has beencalculated in accordance to the terms of the Preference Share Plan. If you intend to exercise thisoption, then payment must be received in full no later than the close of business on **August 15,2005**.As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan (“the Option Plan”), you will also be granted, as ofJuly 14, 2005, the option to purchase 240 Ordinary Shares in the Company. These options areexercisable in accordance to the terms of the Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity toobtain an equal amount of options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to theterms of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional PreferenceShares before **August 15, 2005**.Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful year forConsolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.Yours sincerely,