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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                           2,409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                       286
<INVENTORY>                                     47,950
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,519
<PP&E>                                          67,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,175
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,428
<SALES>                                         38,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,922
<CGS>                                           28,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,160)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,427)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,733)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,733)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED WITH THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         582,341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,199,889
<PP&E>                                      28,945,137
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,102,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,042,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          533,935
<BONDS>                                     19,448,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,042,285
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,335,429
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,486,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               699,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,126,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,790
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,790
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,790
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7963
VICTOR QUINONES-GONDOLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN; MAJOR, Worcester County Jail, Defendants - Appellees, andASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, INS; COMMISSIONERS INS; DOC INTERNAL AFFAIRS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-01- 1846-MJG) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Quinones-Gondola, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Breads, Jr., Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Victor Quinones-Gondola appeals the district court’s grant ofAppellees’ Motion for More Definite Statement. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We also deny Quinones-Gondola’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
946 A.2d 92

#### Vincent THOMAS, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 30, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2008, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2084 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2084

              For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 1993

  Mrs. Mink introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles shall be held and considered to have 
been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required 
visa fee. Upon the granting of permanent residence to such alien as 
provided for in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
proper officer to reduce by the proper number, during the current 
fiscal year or the fiscal year next following, the total number of 
immigrant visas which are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of such Act, or if applicable, 
the total number of immigrant visas which are made available to natives 
of the country of the alien's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4519]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 010801B]


Marine Mammals; File No. 473-1433-02.

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Permit No. 473-1433-01, issued to 
Janice Straley, University of Southeast Alaska, 1332 Seward Avenue, 
Sitka, Alaska 99835-9498, was amended.

ADDRESSES: The amendment and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: 
Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289); and Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, 709 West 
9th Street, 4\th\ Floor, Juneau, Alaska 99801, (907/586-7221).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Lewandowski, 301/713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 15, 2000, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (65 FR 49785) that an amendment of Permit No. 473-
1433, issued December 23, 1997 (62 FR 67052), had been requested by the 
above-named individual. The requested amendment has been granted under 
the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the 
regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of 
endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
    The permit has been amended to authorize: (1) 100 sperm whale takes 
(Physeter catodon) by photo-identification; (2) 5 sperm whale takes by 
suction cup tagging for critter cam; and (3) 25 sperm whale takes for 
harassment incidental to suction cup tagging with critter cam. No 
comments were received from the public on this permit amendment.
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the 
subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: February 16, 2001.
Eugene T. Nitta,
Acting Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-4519 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
| | EXHIBIT 32.2 | 
| | ------------ | 

|
|

| | CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

|In connection with the Quarterly Report of AirRover Wi-Fi Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Loflin, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), that:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|
|

|Dated: August 23, 2004. | /s/ DAVID LOFLIN | 
|----------------------- | ---------------- | 

| | David Loflin | 
| | ------------ | 

| | Acting Chief Financial Officer | 
| | ------------------------------ |
#### Lee *versus*Pilgrim.

In an action on the ease for false and fraudulent representations, the person to whom the credit was given is a witness for the defendant, to rebut the allegations of plaintiff.

Error to the Common Pleas of *Wyoming county.*

This was an action on the case, by Lee *v.*Pilgrim, for a deceit in falsely recommending one Myers, as a man in good circumstances and worthy of credit.

*17Myers, on the 27th of March, 1845, called on the plaintiff, Lee, with the defendant, James N. Pilgrim, to purchase a yoke of oxen of him, the plaintiff. The said Myers bought the oxen *and gave Ms note*to plaintiff for $70, payable to the plaintiff on the 1st of September following. The oxen were delivered to Myers. After the note became due, it was sued, and execution issued which was returned *milla lona;*the said Myers was in fact insolvent; after an ineffectual effort to collect his money from Myers, the, plaintiff resorted to this action, claiming to recover the price of the oxen from the defendant, because he, the defendant, recommended the said Myers to be a man in good circumstances and worthy of credit. After the plaintiff had closed, the defendant’s counsel called Myers, the purchaser of the oxen, to rebut the testimony given on part of plaintiff: to his competency, plaintiff objected, but he was admitted, and testified.

The admission of Myers was assigned for error.

The case was argued by *H. B. Wright,*with whom was *Brislin,*for plaintiff in error.—

He contended, that though a person concerned in a, fraud may be a witness for the party defrauded, yet that he is not for the party with whom he was connected in the fraud: 10 *Ser. & R.*188; 9 *Barr*21.

*S. Wright*was for defendant,

but the court declined to hear him.

July 12,

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Rogers, J.

This is an action on the case for deceit, and not as was first erroneously supposed, an action on a guaranty. The witness therefore has no interest in the event of the suit, as is ruled in Boyd’s Ex’rs. *v.*Brown, 6 *Barr*310. It is there held, that in an action on the case for false and fraudulent representations, the party to whom credit is given is a competent' witness. There he was offered by the plaintiff; here by the defendant, in which only do they differ. But this cannot alter the principle, for the same reason applies to both, namely, the witness has no interest in the suit, nor -will the verdict be evidence in any suit to which the witness is a party. The debt remains as before the recovery. Indeed, the point of interest was abandoned on the argument, and the exception was attempted to be rested on some supposed policy, not clearly explained, and which I cannot comprehend. It is said the witness was a party to the fraud; but to exclude him for that reason, it will be necessary for the court to assume that there was fraud in the matter in issue, and that the witness was a party to it. But this the court is not bound to do, at least without some *18evidence. Besides, it is well settled that when one of two or more tort feasors is sued, those not parties to the action are competent witnesses.

Judgment affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 29, 2016

t0922

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2016

151282

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151282

COA: 324831

Saginaw CC: 14-039708-FC

JOHN JOSEPH BARRERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 21, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Saginaw County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after 

the date of this order. The prosecutor shall specifically address whether, pursuant to 

People v Thompson, 488 Mich 888 (2010) and People v Spanke, 254 Mich App 642 

(2003), Offense Variable 8, MCL 777.38, should not have been scored in this case where 

the movement was “incidental” to the offense of criminal sexual conduct in the second 

degree. See also People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 442 (2013) (“[A]bsent an express 

prohibition, courts may consider conduct inherent in a crime when scoring offense 

variables.”). 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
#### John Louis PRICE, Appellant v. UNITED MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee.

No. 10-7080.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 19, 2010.

*376John Louis Price, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before: GARLAND, BROWN, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 13, 2010, be affirmed. Appellant states that the District of Columbia “now” owns appellee United Medical Center (“UMC”) and that this is the basis for diversity jurisdiction over his case. However, appellant is a citizen of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia is not subject to diversity jurisdiction in any event. *See, e.g., Barwood, Inc. v. District of Columbia,*202 F.3d 290, 292 (D.C.Cir.2000); *Long v. District of Columbia,*820 F.2d 409, 414 (D.C.Cir.1987). Moreover, assuming that the District of Columbia’s ownership of UMC could give rise to a federal claim in certain circumstances, appellant does not assert that the District of Columbia owned UMC at the time of the events at issue, and he does not suggest any other basis for federal question jurisdiction. The district court therefore properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
November 12, 1998

Avondale Industries, Inc.
Post Office Box 50280
New Orleans, Louisiana  70150

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public  Accountants,  of the unaudited  interim financial
information of Avondale Industries,  Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended
September  30, 1998 and 1997, as indicated in our report dated October 28, 1998;
because  we  did  not  perform  an  audit,  we  expressed  no  opinion  on  that
information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September  30,  1998,  is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-32165 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act of  1933,  is not  considered  a part  of the  Registration
Statement  prepared  or  certified  by an  accountant  or a report  prepared  or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New Orleans, Louisiana
Schedule 10.4 (f)
                                                                to the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement
                                                                      between Statoil ASA and Statpet AS
                                                                                     and Norsk Teekay AS
                                                                                  dated 15 December 2002

Navion Reorganisation

We refer to the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement (the Agreement) entered into on 15 December 2002
between Statoil ASA (Statoil) and Statpet AS (Statpet) on the one side and Norsk Teekay AS on the
other side.

Words and expressions defined or used in the Agreement have the same meanings in this Schedule, unless
the contrary is expressly stated or where those meanings would be clearly inconsistent in the relevant
context.

We hereby certify that:

|1. | The Navion Reorganisation has been implemented in accordance with Schedule 1.1 Navion
         Reorganisation.                                                                                                                            
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|2. | As at the Effective Date the Vessels were in the same physical condition as they were at the
         time of Norsk Teekay AS inspection, fair wear and tear excepted.                                                                   
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|3. | As at the date hereof the Vessels are owned by Navion Offshore Loading AS or Navion Shipping
         AS, all of which are free and clear of Encumbrances, except for maritime liens incurred in
         the ordinary course of business.

[as at Closing] 2003

For and on behalf of
Statoil ASA and Statpet AS

__________________
[name of authorised signatory]