alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |   |                         |
|------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                         |   |                         |   |
| Date:      December 14, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Jay      H. Shidler |   |
|                         |   | Jay      H. Shidler          |   |
|                         |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|                         |   |                         |   |
**
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION
**

Washington, D.C. 20549

**
FORM 10-Q
**

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For quarterly period ended September 30, 2001
Commission file number: 0-16946
**Lab*One*, Inc.

10101 Renner Blvd.

Lenexa, Kansas 66219

(913) 888-1770

Incorporated in Missouri

I.R.S. Employer Identification Number: 43-1039532

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reportsrequired to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theRegistrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to suchfiling requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes /X/    No /  /
Number of shares outstanding of only class of Registrant's common stock, $.01par value, as of October 31, 2001 - 10,803,310 net of 2,246,710 shares held astreasury stock.

**Lab*One*, Inc.

 

Form 10-Q for the Third Quarter, 2001

Table of Contents

PART I.   FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.   Financial Statements:

   Consolidated Balance      Sheets

   Consolidated Statements of      Operations

   Consolidated Statement of      Stockholders' Equity

   Consolidated Statements of      Cash Flows

Notes to      Financial Statements

ITEM 2.   MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF      FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

   Selected Financial      Data 

   Third Quarter Analysis      

   Year to Date Analysis      

   Financial Position,      Liquidity and Capital Resources 

ITEM 3.   QUANTITATIVE AND      QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK 

PART II.   OTHER      INFORMATION

**SIGNATURES******
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

388 

KA 13-01451 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL S. LEWIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (JON P. GETZ OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JAMES B. RITTS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G.

Reed, A.J.), rendered June 26, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of predatory sexual assault against a

child (eight counts), rape in the first degree (7 counts), rape in the

second degree (11 counts), rape in the third degree (7 counts), sexual

abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child (four

counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a

jury trial of, inter alia, eight counts of predatory sexual assault

against a child (Penal Law § 130.96), defendant contends that County

Court failed to apprehend its power to exercise its discretion in

submitting representative counts to the jury inasmuch as the court

allowed the prosecutor to select the counts to submit (see generally

CPL 300.40 [6] [b]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s

contention is preserved for our review, we nevertheless reject it. 

The record establishes that the court engaged in lengthy and detailed

discussions with both the prosecutor and defense counsel before

determining which counts would be submitted to the jury.

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that

the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of

counts seven and eight of the indictment (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d

10, 19). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes

as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we

conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence

(see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We reject

defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance

of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Finally, 
-2- 388 

KA 13-01451 

the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 22, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

HENRY LEE GRIFFIN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STEVE SMITH, in his individual and

official capacity; CORRECTIONS

CABLE TV CORP.; RICK

RAEMISCH, in his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-1149

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-03015-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Henry Griffin, a Colorado prisoner, filed this suit alleging that prison

canteen officials violated his constitutional rights and federal antitrust laws by

selling televisions to inmates like himself at prices too high and with too few

channels. He also contended that his rights were violated because prisoners in

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and

judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
other state prisons enjoy better access to pizza deliveries, double mattresses, and

“mature . . . movies.” In a nine-page order the district court explained that these

and Mr. Griffin’s related complaints fail to state a claim and dismissed his case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. We see no error in the district court’s disposition

and adopt the district court’s reasoning as our own. Neither may we reverse on

the basis of the new arguments Mr. Griffin advances for the first time on appeal. 

Mr. Griffin’s in forma pauperis motion is denied and this appeal is dismissed. 

The district court’s dismissal counts as a strike for purposes of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act and this appeal counts as a second. See Jennings v.

Natrona Cnty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir. 1999);

Johnson v. Standifird, 400 F. App’x 369, 371 (10th Cir. 2010).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7810

ANTONIO EUGENE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus
GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-343-3) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Eugene Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Antonio Eugene Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Safeskin Corporation:


We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows of Safeskin Corporation and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 1996. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated results of operations and cash flows of
Safeskin Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1996 in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.



                                                   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


San Diego, California
February 17, 1997
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Exhibit 21





                                         State of
              Subsidiary              Incorporation
----------------------------------------------------
<S>                                   <C>
Car Care, Inc.                          Delaware
Care Investment, Inc.                   Delaware
Colonial Full Service Car Wash, Inc.    Texas
CRCD, Inc.                              Texas
Eager Beaver Car Wash, Inc.             Florida
F.E.D. Properties, Inc.                 New York
50's Classic Car Wash of Lubbock, Inc.  Texas
Innovative Control Systems, Inc.        Pennsylvania
Mace Car Wash - Arizona, Inc.           Arizona
Mace Car Wash, Inc.                     Delaware
Mace Security Centers, Inc.             Colorado
Mace Trademark Corp.                    Delaware
Mace Truck Wash, Inc.                   Delaware
Mace Wash, Inc.                         Delaware
MSP Retail, Inc.                        Colorado
Worth Manufacturing, Inc.               Texas

</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2429

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend preferential treatment in the admission of Amerasian children to children born in the

Philippines.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 16, 1993

Mr. BLACKWELL (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. MARGOLIESMEZVINSKY, Mr. WYNN, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Ms. PELOSI, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FILNER, Mr. UNDERWOOD, and Mr. MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend

preferential treatment in the admission of Amerasian

children to children born in the Philippines.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENDING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN

4 THE ADMISSION OF AMERASIAN CHILDREN

5 TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE PHILIPPINES.

6 Section 204(f)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Na7 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(f)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by
2

•HR 2429 IH

1 striking ‘‘the date of the enactment of this subsection’’

2 and inserting ‘‘October 22, 1982, or was born in the Phil3 ippines after 1950 and before August 24, 1993’’.

Æ
| 1. | I      have reviewed this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on      Form 10-K of Hollywood Media Corp.; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. | [Intentionally      omitted]; |
|----|-------------------------------|

| 4. | [Intentionally      omitted]; and |
|----|-----------------------------------|

| 5. | [Intentionally      omitted]. |
|----|-------------------------------|

| Date:   April      30, 2010 | By:    |  /s/      Mitchell Rubenstein                                               |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   | Mitchell      Rubenstein, Chairman of the Board and      Chief Executive Officer |

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 29, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 29, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0500. ROBERT ARMBRUSTER v. STATE OF GEORGIA. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2016CV281335
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2677

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 14 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 7), 1993

Received

OCTOBER 20 (legislative day, OCTOBER 13), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and

Administration

AN ACT

To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to plan, design, and construct the West Court

of the National Museum of Natural History building.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF

4 WEST COURT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NAT5 URAL HISTORY BUILDING.

6 The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution

7 is authorized to plan, design, and construct the West

8 Court of the National Museum of Natural History build9 ing.
2

•HR 2677 RFS

1 SEC. 2. FUNDING.

2 No appropriated funds may be used to pay any ex3 pense of the planning, design, and construction authorized

4 by section 1.

Passed the House of Representatives September 13,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Humphreys and Senior Judge Hodges 

WILLIAM T. BOWLING/ 

TED BOWLING CONSTRUCTION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0178-04-2 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 1, 2004 

JOSHUA CREEL 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William T. Bowling, pro se, on brief). 

 (William C. Carr, Jr.; Emroch & Kilduff, LLP, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 William T. Bowling/Ted Bowling Construction (“employer”) appeals a decision of the 

Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that employer failed to sustain its burden of 

proving that it did not have three or more employees regularly in service and was, therefore, not 

subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

commission in its final opinion. See Creel v. Bowling/Ted Bowling Construction, VWC File 

No. 211-36-95 (Dec. 22, 2003). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.1

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Because we summarily affirm the commission’s decision, we will not address the 

arguments raised by Creel with respect to employer’s failure to comply with the requirements of 

Rule 5A:25.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                            SOLA INTERNATIONAL INC.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in thousands)
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Year Ended March 31,
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                   1999     2000      2001
                                                  -------  ------- ----------
<S>                                               <C>      <C>     <C>
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense............................... $18,015  $20,282 $   24,589
  Interest capitalized during period.............     167       --        185
  Amortization of financing costs................     457      478        986
  Interest portion of rental expense.............   2,391    2,605      2,586
                                                  -------  ------- ----------
Total fixed charges.............................. $21,030  $23,365 $   28,346
                                                  =======  ======= ==========

Earnings:
  Income/(loss) from continuing operations before
   income taxes.................................. $20,192  $ 1,065 $ (100,492)

Fixed charges per above..........................  21,030   23,365     28,346
Less interest capitalized during the period......    (167)      --       (185)
Current period amortization of interest
 capitalized in prior periods....................      27       60         36
                                                  -------  ------- ----------

Earnings/Deficiency in earnings as adjusted...... $41,082  $24,490 $  (72,295)
                                                  =======  ======= ==========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...............    1.95     1.05         --
                                                  =======  ======= ==========
Ratio of deficiency in earnings to fixed
 charges.........................................      --       --      (2.55)
                                                  =======  ======= ==========
</TABLE>

   For purposes of this calculation, earnings/deficiency in earnings are
defined as income/(loss) before provision for income taxes, minority interest
and discontinued operations plus fixed charges. Fixed charges include interest
expense on all indebtedness (including amortization of deferred financing
costs) and the portion of operating lease rental expense which management
believes is representative of the interest factor of rent expense
(approximately one-third of rent expense).
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 Quarterly Report of American Tax Credit Properties L.P.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 29, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of Richman Tax Credit
Properties Inc., general partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P., general
partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted
pursuant to (S) 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 Registrant.


/s/ Neal Ludeke
-------------------------------
Neal Ludeke
Chief Financial Officer of Richman Tax
Credit Properties Inc., general partner of
Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P., general
partner of the Registrant
November 13, 2003