alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Christopher Miles
                               356 Pine Avenue, #1
                             Pacific Grove, CA 93950

January 10, 2005

To
The Board of Directors
Wimax EU, Ltd.

I hereby grant to Wimax EU, Ltd the exclusive right to repurchase up to
8,000,000 (eight million) shares of my Wimax EU, Ltd stock at a price of $.025
per share. This right shall begin on January 10, 2005 and shall expire on
January 9, 2007.

The company can purchase these shares at any time and in any amount but no less
than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) per occurrence, by notifying Christopher
Miles of its intent to repurchase the shares. When so notified and upon receipt
of a check representing good funds, Christopher Miles shall surrender his stock
certificate to the transfer agent with instructions to return the agreed number
of shares to the treasury and to reissue the stock certificate back to him with
the appropriate number of shares reduced from the total.

Wimax EU, hereby agrees that it will pay the cost of the transfer agent's fees
in canceling and reissuing the shares.

Signed this 10th day of January 2005



/s/ Christopher Miles
------------------------
Christopher Miles
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM OZAH,

D.O.C. #D64365,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv241–WS/MAF

OFFICER A. BENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER DIRECTING TRANSFER OF CASE

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 4) docketed May 7, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that the action be

transferred to the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff William Ozah has

responded (ECF No. 5) to the report and recommendation, advising the court that

he consents to the transfer of his case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 4) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:20-cv-00241-WS-MAF Document 6 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The clerk shall TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division, for all further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of May , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00241-WS-MAF Document 6 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          35,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,658)
<INVENTORY>                                     96,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200,343
<PP&E>                                          18,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,397)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,409
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,516,607
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,414,796)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   205,220
<SALES>                                        517,683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               517,683
<CGS>                                          344,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  704,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (244,884)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (245,684)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                557,994
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   312,310
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000315 13-NOV-2015 10:39 AM

SCWC-15-0000315
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. ONEWEST BANK NA; DAVID B. ROSEN, ESQ.; THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. ROSEN, ALC; DOES 1-10, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000315; CIV. NO. 14-1-0379(1))
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) The applications for writ of certiorari, filed on October 20, 2015, are hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, November 13, 2015. Michael C. Greenspon, petitioner pro se /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson David B. Rosen, Esq. for respondents
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 277
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 277 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 277.10 Program income. ( a ) Program income is gross income resulting from activities financed with program funds. Such earnings exclude interest income but include income from service fees, usage or rental fees, sale of assets purchased with program funds, and royalties on patents and copyrights.
( b ) Interest earned on advances of program administrative funds shall be remitted to FNS except for interest earned on advances to States or instrumentalities of a State as provided by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-577) and advances to tribal organizations under the Indian Self-Determination Act (sections 102 through 104).
( c ) Income resulting from the sale of real and personal property whose acquisition cost was borne in whole or in part with Program funds shall be remitted to FNS or applied to the Federal share of current program costs in accordance with § 277.13. All other sales proceeds will be handled in accordance with § 277.13.
( d ) Unless there is a prior agreement between FNS and the State agency, the State agency shall have no obligation to FNS with respect to royalties received from copyrights or patents produced as a result of activities financed with program administrative funds.
( e ) Any other income earned under activities supported by program administrative funds may be retained by the State agency if they are deducted from the gross program administrative costs for the purposes of determining net costs and FNS's share of net cost.
( f ) State agencies shall record the receipt and expenditure of revenues such as taxes, special assessments, levies, fines, etc., as a part of program fund transactions when such revenues are specifically earmarked for program fund projects.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.S., a child, * From the 91st District Court

 of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. CV2146081.

No. 11-23-00010-CV * June 15, 2023

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-00052-MP-GRJ

EARL JEFFERY BARBER, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated February 7, 2013. (Doc. 106). The parties have been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely

filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order. 

2. The motion to vacate, Doc. 105, is DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, and no

certificate of appealability is appropriate in this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1732

CHUAN ZHI YU, Petitioner,
versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-562-531) Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 29, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston Wen-Hsiung Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Russell J.E. Verby, Shelley R. Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Chuan Zhi Yu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order pretermitting her application for adjustment of status and ordering her removal from the United States. We deny her petition for review. Yu entered the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancé visa. She did not marry the sponsor of that visa, and now seeks adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2000) based on an approved labor certification. Relying on its interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) (2000), and our decision in Markovski v. Gonzales , 486 F.3d 108 (4th Cir. 2007), the Board found Yu ineligible for adjustment of status on any basisother than marriage to the K-1 sponsor within ninety days of entry. We conclude that the Board correctly applied the cited authority. Therefore, we deny Yu’s petition for review. 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. PETITION DENIED
Page 1 of 2

1

Defendant’s notice of appeal was due ten days after entry of the order. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(I). The ten-day period excludes weekends and

holidays. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a). Taking these two rules together, Defendant’s

notice of appeal was required to be filed on or before May 8, 2008. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cr52-SPM

ERIC EUGENE BALCOM,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Defendant is appealing the Order Denying Motion to Reduce Under 18

U.S.C. § 3582 (doc. 104) entered on April 24, 2008. The Eleventh Circuit Court

of Appeals has remanded jurisdiction back to this Court for a determination of

whether Defendant’s untimely1 notice of appeal, deemed filed on June 4, 2008,

should nevertheless be accepted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

4(b)(4). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant shall have up to and including August 25, 2008, to file a 

written explanation of excusable neglect or good cause, if he has any, for filing

his notice of appeal late.

Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 114 Filed 08/07/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:02cr52-SPM

2. Defendant’s failure to file a written explanation, as ordered, will

result in a determination by this Court that no excusable neglect or good cause

exists to accept Defendant’s untimely notice of appeal.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 114 Filed 08/07/08 Page 2 of 2
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0301

_____________________________

SYLVESTER O’NEIL LEE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Dustin Stephenson, Judge.

January 26, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Sylvester O’Neil Lee, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Sadie Frischling, Respondent, v. Herbert Schrank et al., as Executors of Nathan Frischling, Deceased, Appellants.

Order entered January 31, 1968 and judgment entered February 13, 1968 unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of awarding plaintiff the amount of her claim, reduced by the sum of $12,398.50, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff concedes $10,411 may be due on the first counterclaim, and consents to the deduction of the amount of $1,987.50 involved in the fifth counterclaim. The counterclaims, except to the extent the first counterclaim is conceded, present issues of fact and are severed. Settle order on notice providing for a severance. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Salazar, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 914]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J), rendered March 9, 2004, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]; *People v Vasquez,*70 NY2d 1 [1987]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21.1SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANYCIM Trucking, Inc., an Illinois corporationMetal Management Aerospace, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management Alabama, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management Arizona, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability companyMetal Management Connecticut, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management Indiana, Inc., an Illinois corporationMetal Management Memphis, L.L.C., a Tennessee limited liability companyMetal Management Midwest, Inc., an Illinois corporationMetal Management Mississippi, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management New Haven, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management Northeast, Inc., a New Jersey corporationMetal Management Ohio, Inc., an Ohio corporationMetal Management Pittsburgh, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management Proler Southwest, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management S&A Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management West Coast Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporationMetal Management West, Inc., a Colorado corporationMM Metal Dynamics Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporationNaporano Iron & Metal, Inc., a Delaware corporationNew York Recycling Ventures, Inc., a Delaware corporationProler Southwest GP, Inc., a Delaware corporationProler Southwest LP, a Texas limited partnershipReserve Iron & Metal Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnershipMetal Dynamics LLC, a Delaware limited liability companyMetal Dynamics Detroit LLC, a Delaware limited liability companyMetal Dynamics Indianapolis LLC, a Delaware limited liability companyMetal Management Nashville, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (ownership of 50%)Port Albany Ventures LLC., a Delaware limited liability company (ownership of 50%)Rondout Iron & Metal Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (ownership of 50%)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Sound Advice, Inc.:

The consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-27051) on Form S-8 of Sound Advice, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Sound Advice, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of January 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended January 31, 2001, and the related financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the January 31, 2001 annual report
on Form 10-K of Sound Advice, Inc.


KPMG LLP


Fort Lauderdale, Florida
April 30, 2001
#### § 29.3036 Leaf surface.

The smoothness or roughness of the web or lamina of a tobacco leaf. Leaf surface is affected to some extent by the size and shrinkage of the veins or fibers. (See Elements of quality.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
§ 301.55-6 Compliance agreements and cancellation. ( a ) Any person engaged in growing, handling, or moving regulated articles may enter into a compliance agreement when an inspector determines that the person is aware of this subpart, agrees to comply with its provisions, and agrees to comply with all the provisions contained in the compliance agreement.[1]
( b ) Any compliance agreement may be canceled, either orally or in writing, by an inspector whenever the inspector finds that the person who has entered into the compliance agreement has failed to comply with this subpart or the terms of the compliance agreement. If the cancellation is oral, the cancellation and the reasons for the cancellation will be confirmed in writing as promptly as circumstances allow. Any person whose compliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in writing, to the Administrator, within 10 days after receiving written notification of the cancellation. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the compliance agreement was wrongfully canceled. As promptly as circumstances allow, the Administrator will grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision. A hearing will be held to resolve any conflict as to any material fact. Rules of practice concerning a hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0337) [74 FR 27073, June 8, 2009, as amended at 87 FR 80008, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.55-6
[1] Compliance agreement forms are available without charge from local Plant Protection and Quarantine offices, which are listed in telephone directories.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 285.2 Funding. ( a ) FNS shall, consistent with the plan of operation required by § 285.3 of this part, and subject to availability of funds, provide nutrition assistance grant funds to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to cover 100 percent of the expenditures related to food assistance provided to needy persons and 50 percent of the administrative expenses related to the food assistance. The amount of the grant funds provided to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall not exceed amounts appropriated for this purpose for each fiscal year.
( b ) FNS shall, subject to the provisions in §§ 285.3 and 285.5 in this part, and limited by the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, pay to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for the applicable fiscal year, the amount estimated by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico pursuant to § 285.3(b)(4). Payments shall be made no less frequently than on a monthly basis prior to the beginning of each month consistent with the Treasury Fiscal Requirement Manual, Volume I, part 6, section 2030; these letters of credit shall be drawn on an as-needed basis. The amount shall be reduced or increased to the extent of any prior overpayment or underpayment which FNS determines has been made and which has not been previoulsy adjusted. The payment(s) received by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for a fiscal year shall not exceed the total authorized for the grant, or the total cost for the nutrition assistance program eligible for funding, whichever is less, for that fiscal year.
( c ) FNS may recover from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through offsets to funding during any fiscal year, funds previously paid to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and later determined by the Secretary to have been overpayments. Funds which may be recovered include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Costs not included in the approved plan of operation;
( 2 ) Unallowable costs discovered in audit or investigation findings;
( 3 ) Funds allocated to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which exceeded expenditures during the fiscal year for which the funds were authorized; or
( 4 ) Amounts owed to FNS as a result of the nutrition assistance grant which have been billed to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and which the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has failed to pay without cause acceptable to FNS.
( d ) Funds for payment of any prior fiscal year expenditures shall be claimed from the funding for that prior year. The payment of funds shall not exceed the authorization for that prior fiscal year.
[Amdt. 209, 47 FR 32409, July 27, 1982, as amended by Amdt. 243, 49 FR 49585, Dec. 21, 1984; Amdt. 274, 51 FR 18752, May 21, 1986; Amdt. 371, 61 FR 60012, Nov. 26, 1996]
#### § 28.467 Leaf Grade 7.

Leaf Grade 7 is leaf which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Good Ordinary, effective July 1, 1987.”
39–008 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–762 

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE 

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 4520, AMERICAN JOBS 

CREATION ACT OF 2004 

OCTOBER 7, 2004.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 830] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 830, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report to accompany H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 

2004, and against its consideration. Finally, the rule provides that 

the conference report shall be considered as read. 

Æ
#### § 29.2636 Rule 20.

Tobacco damaged under 20 percent but which otherwise meets the specifications of a grade shall be treated as a subgrade by placing the special factor “U” after the grademark. Tobacco damaged 20 percent or more shall be designated “No-G.”