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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SECTION  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  ARC
COMMUNICATIONS,  INC.'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        451,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 925,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   49,000
<INVENTORY>                                     6,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,373,000
<PP&E>                                        363,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,817,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         635,000
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   144,000
<COMMON>                                       14,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,409,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,817,000
<SALES>                                     2,515,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,515,000
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,142,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             23,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               358,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  358,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.03



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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                         740,028
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,071,898
<PP&E>                                           8,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,086,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,582,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,525
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,541,340)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,086,657
<SALES>                                        760,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               760,154
<CGS>                                          766,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  828,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               149,519
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (990,770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (990,770)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (990,770)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T19:16:56-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene Turner, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered December 14, 1973, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, possession of weapons, etc., as a felony, and unauthorized use of a vehicle, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The defendant’s conviction under count four of the indictment, charging unauthorized use of a vehicle pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 165.05 of the Penal Law, is a lesser included offense of count one of the indictment, charging criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree pursuant to section 165.50 of the Penal Law. All elements required to prove the former offense were required to establish the greater offense (see CPL 1.20, subd 37; *People v Chapman,*60 AD2d 584). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Gulotta and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### Flora Vicente, Respondent, v. Vicente Fontanals et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 2, 1960, granting plaintiff’s motion to open her default, to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore it to its regular position on the Trial Term Calendar. Order affirmed, without costs (see *Taylor*v. *Graci,*1 A D 2d 790). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 22-1100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

LAVENEUR JACKSON,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on January 23, 2023, is 

amended as follows:

On page 16, line 23, to page 17, line 2, delete the following 

text: ", absent Forte's testimony, the record would not suffice to 

permit a rational juror to find that the guns at issue traveled in 

interstate commerce. So,"
### §150. Withdrawals of land for Indian reservations prohibited

No public lands of the United States shall be withdrawn by Executive Order, proclamation, or otherwise, for or as an Indian reservation except by act of Congress.

(June 30, 1919, ch. 4, §27, 41 Stat. 34.)
EFED Label Data Report (Active Ingredient)

Ingredient: MCPB, Sodium Salt (019202)

Current As Of Date : 8/26/2013

NDC - No Dosage Conversion ; NS - Not Specified

Site Desc Use Group Desc Reg# LUIS Accepted 

Date AI% Formulation Desc Product Name Product 

Max App 

Rate

A. I. Max 

App Rate Max # Apps / CC

Product 

Seasonal 

Max Dose/Year

A. I. Conv 

Seasonal 

Max Dose/Year

Product 

Seasonal 

Max 

Dose/CC

A. I. Seasonal 

Max 

Dose/CC

Max # 

Apps / Unit 

of Time

Minimum 

Retreatment Interval

Rentry 

Interval Application Method Type

Application 

Method 

Equipment

Application 

Method Timing Incorporation Depth Buffer Restriction Disallowed Geo Areas Allowable Geo Areas Soil Factor

Percent 

Organic 

Matter

MINT TERRESTRI 71368-5 12/5/2012 23.5 EC THISTROL 2 pt/ 1 a .54079375 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24 hr Spray. Aircraft. Early 

MINT TERRESTRI 71368-5 12/5/2012 23.5 EC THISTROL 2 pt/ 1 a .54079375 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24 hr Spray. Aircraft. Fall.

MINT TERRESTRI 71368-5 12/5/2012 23.5 EC THISTROL 2 pt/ 1 a .54079375 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24 hr Spray. Aircraft. Spring.

MINT TERRESTRI 71368-5 12/5/2012 23.5 EC THISTROL 2 pt/ 1 a .54079375 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24 hr Spray. Ground. Early 

MINT TERRESTRI 71368-5 12/5/2012 23.5 EC THISTROL 2 pt/ 1 a .54079375 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24 hr Spray. Ground. Fall.

MINT TERRESTRI 71368-5 12/5/2012 23.5 EC THISTROL 2 pt/ 1 a .54079375 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24 hr Spray. Ground. Spring.

PEAS, FIELD TERRESTRI 15440- 11/6/2008 23.5 EC SODIUM MCPB 6 pt/ 1 a 1.61795738 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 12 hr Spray. Aircraft. Postemergenc

PEAS, FIELD TERRESTRI 15440- 11/6/2008 23.5 EC SODIUM MCPB 6 pt/ 1 a 1.61795738 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 12 hr Spray. Ground. Postemergenc

PEAS, FIELD TERRESTRI 71368-5 12/5/2012 23.5 EC THISTROL 6 pt/ 1 a 1.62238125 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24 hr Spray. Aircraft. Postemergenc

PEAS, FIELD TERRESTRI 71368-5 12/5/2012 23.5 EC THISTROL 6 pt/ 1 a 1.62238125 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24 hr Spray. Ground. Postemergenc

Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.3**

 

**Certification ofChief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Guitar Center, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated: November 8, 2004 | /s/ Bruce Ross          |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    | Bruce Ross              |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

STATE OF TEXAS •.

•Alj."umuaBH»n«l

7 PITNEY BOWES

$ 00.28s 11 /26/2014PR8VATE USE . r NOV 26 2014

BRYANT, STEPHEN DWAYNE

The Court has dismissed your application for wriji'of habeas corpus without written

order; the sentence has been discharged' See Exparte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d

452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

so&gffW ZlW-F82?45*-oi

iEBiMSB 75202

Abel Acosta, Clerk

STEPHEN DWAYNE BRYANT

((ciVM TO SttiO&i

0T IN DALLAS'CWNTY AIL
### §3131. Establishment of economic development partnerships

#### (a) In general

In providing assistance under this subchapter, the Secretary shall cooperate with States and other entities to ensure that, consistent with national objectives, Federal programs are compatible with and further the objectives of State, regional, and local economic development plans and comprehensive economic development strategies.

#### (b) Technical assistance

The Secretary may provide such technical assistance to States, political subdivisions of States, sub-State regional organizations (including organizations that cross State boundaries), multi-State regional organizations, and nonprofit organizations as the Secretary determines is appropriate to—

(1) alleviate economic distress;

(2) encourage and support public-private partnerships for the formation and improvement of economic development strategies that sustain and promote economic development across the United States; and

(3) promote investment in infrastructure and technological capacity to keep pace with the changing global economy.

#### (c) Intergovernmental review

The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to ensure that appropriate State and local government agencies have been given a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on proposed projects under this subchapter that the Secretary determines may have a significant direct impact on the economy of the area.

#### (d) Cooperation agreements

#### (1) In general

The Secretary may enter into a cooperation agreement with any 2 or more States, or an organization of any 2 or more States, in support of effective economic development.

#### (2) Participation

Each cooperation agreement shall provide for suitable participation by other governmental and nongovernmental entities that are representative of significant interests in and perspectives on economic development in an area.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title I, §101, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3600; amended Pub. L. 108–373, title I, §103, Oct. 27, 2004, 118 Stat. 1759.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3131, Pub. L. 89–136, title I, §101, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 552; Pub. L. 91–123, title III, §301(1), Nov. 25, 1969, 83 Stat. 219; Pub. L. 92–65, title I, §102, Aug. 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 166; Pub. L. 94–487, title I, §103, Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2331, authorized direct and supplementary grants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(a).

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–373, §103(1), substituted "multi-State regional organizations, and nonprofit organizations" for "and multi-State regional organizations" in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 108–373, §103(2), struck out "adjoining" before "States" in two places.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Inogen, Inc. 

Goleta, California 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-194016) of Inogen, Inc. (Company) of our report datedMarch 31, 2014, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2013. 

/s/ Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP 

Los Angeles,California 

March 31, 2014 

 
1
FILED

U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 14, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-11426

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-00246-CV-4

LINDA L. HIOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(July 14, 2005)

Before BIRCH, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Linda L. Hiott appeals the judgment of the district court, arguing that

the district court erred in granting Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s motion for
2

summary judgment. We agree with the district court that even if we assume the

stacked pictures that injured Plaintiff presented a hazard, there is no evidence that the

Defendant had superior knowledge of the hazard. See Metts v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

604 S.E.2d 235, 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004); Foodmax v. Fleming, 465 S.E.2d 489, 490

(Ga. Ct. App. 1995). The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.
### §§7383a to 7383d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 7383a, Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3143, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 934, which related to background investigations of certain personnel at Department of Energy facilities, was renumbered section 4503 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(4)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1772, and is classified to section 2653 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7383b, Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3145, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 935, which related to protection of classified information during laboratory-to-laboratory exchanges, was renumbered section 4524 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(14), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1775, and is classified to section 2674 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7383c, Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3146, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 935, which related to restrictions on access to national laboratories by foreign visitors from sensitive countries, was renumbered section 4502 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(3)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1771, and is classified to section 2652 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7383d, Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3150, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 939, which related to notice to congressional committees of certain security and counterintelligence failures within nuclear energy defense programs, was renumbered section 4505 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(6), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1773, and is classified to section 2656 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 30226

D.C. No. 4:02

- cr

- 00052

- DLC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21 , 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., appeals from the revocation of supervised

release and the 10

- month sentence and 39

- month term of supervised release

imposed upon revocation

. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Fourstar’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 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

MAY 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 30226

along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Fourstar has filed a pro se

supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Pen son v. Ohio , 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief in this direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Fourstar’s pro se motion to

substitute counsel is DENIED. Fourstar’s pro se motion to consolidate, to award

cost s and fees, and to certify constitutional challenges, is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
Filed 10/25/22 Via Appia v. Marcus& Millichap Real Estate Investment etc. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

VIA APPIA, LLC,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

MARCUS & MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE 

INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. et al.,

 Defendants and Respondents.

F081598

(Super. Ct. No. 10684)

OPINION

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Mariposa County. F. Dana 

Walton, Judge.

Newmeyer & Dillion, Alan H. Packer and Brandon A. Clouse; The Ware Practice 

Group, Mindy L. Ware and James Ware for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Neumiller & Beardslee, Paul N. Balestracci and Ricardo Z. Aranda for Defendants 

and Respondents. 

-ooOooMEMORANDUM OPINION1

Plaintiff Via Appia, LLC appeals from a postjudgment order awarding attorney 

fees to defendants Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc., Ronald 

1 This matter is proper for disposition by a memorandum opinion in accordance 

with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. (See People v. 

Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum opinions]; Cal. Const., 

art. VI, § 14 [appellate decisions “shall be in writing with reasons stated”].
Swim and Earle Hyman (collectively, Brokers) after the superior court granted Brokers’ 

motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor. The judgment was 

entered in October 2019 and the order awarding attorney fees in the sum of $287,706.46 

was filed in July 2020. The award was made pursuant to an attorney fees provision in the 

exclusive representation agreement executed by Via Appia and Brokers. 

In case No. F080496, we reversed the judgment, concluding there were triable 

issues of material fact as to whether Brokers’ allegedly wrongful conduct was a 

substantial factor in causing Via Appia to incur expenses it would not have otherwise 

incurred. Based on the reversal of the judgment, it necessarily follows that Brokers have 

lost their status as the prevailing party and, thus, are not presently entitled to any award of 

attorney fees. (Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (2020) 59 

Cal.App.5th 82, 107.) Accordingly, the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees to 

Brokers also must be reversed. (Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284 [award 

of attorney fees to the party prevailing will not stand after reversal of the judgment]; 

Merced County Taxpayers’ Assn. v. Cardella (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 396, 402, [an order 

awarding attorney fees “falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based”].)

DISPOSITION

The order awarding attorney fees to Brokers is reversed. Via Appia, LLC shall 

recover its costs on appeal.

FRANSON, J.

WE CONCUR

HILL, P. J.

LEVY, J.
#### Grace Himan, Appellant, v King Bear Auto Service Centers, Inc., et al., Respondents.

In an action against the makers and guarantors of a promissory note, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 25, 1977, as denied her motion for summary judgment and for dismissal of the defendant *1011Gabriel Di Tillio’s counterclaims. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, after the provision that the motion is "denied”, the following: "as to defendant Blaker. The plaintiffs motion is otherwise granted.” As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff payable jointly by defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, except defendant Blaker. Our examination of the record discloses no basis for the finding of Special Term that disputed issues of fact exist surrounding the alleged tender to plaintiff by defendant Di Tillio to satisfy the corporate note. Rather, we find from the affidavits in support of and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, that the tender was not unconditional and therefore could not serve to discharge the party making the tender of his obligation as guarantor of the note. We are reversing as to defendant Blaker solely by reason of her statement that what purported to be her signature on the indorsement of the note was not in fact her signature. That allegation raises an issue of fact as to defendant Blaker. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.