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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         521,033
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  588,733
<ALLOWANCES>                                   116,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,295,755
<PP&E>                                       6,608,390
<DEPRECIATION>                                 474,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,001,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,141,463
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,000,000
<COMMON>                                         1,495
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,001,903
<SALES>                                      1,122,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,122,969
<CGS>                                          675,697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,742,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             389,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,590,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,591,907)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,591,907)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)


</TABLE>
No. 63129.

#### Homestrand, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/17712 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44183

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HARLEY RAY HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 789

Filed: November 28, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve and on-half years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years, for rape of a female under 

that age of sixteen and perpetrator is eighteen years of age or older, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Harley R. Hernandez pleaded guilty to rape of a female under the age of sixteen and 

perpetrator is eighteen years of age or older, Idaho Code § 18-1601(1). The district court 

imposed a unified sentence of twelve and one-half years, with one and one-half years 

determinate. Hernandez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court 

denied.1 Hernandez appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

 

1 Hernandez does not appeal from the district court’s denial of his Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion. 
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hernandez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 534 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4803 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

31143 State Highway 65 in Pengilly, Minnesota, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Richard Arne Koski Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Ms. SMITH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 31143 State Highway 65 in Pengilly, Minnesota, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Richard Arne Koski 

Post Office’’. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4803 RS

1 SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT RICHARD ARNE KOSKI 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 31143 State Highway 65 in 

5 Pengilly, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘First Lieutenant Richard Arne Koski Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Rich11 ard Arne Koski Post Office’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 534 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4803 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostRichard Arne Koski Post Office’’. Pengilly, Minnesota, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant al Service located at 31143 State Highway 65 in 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(A. R. D. 70)

#### Thos. B. Wilson & Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1880; 1434.

Third Division, Appellate Term

(Order dated December 6, 1956)

Appellant not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*trial attorney), for the appellee.

Before Johnson and Donlon, Judges

ORDER

Upon the enclosed stipulation, it is hereby ordered that the above application for review be remanded to the trial court for all purposes.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DeWAYNE WASHINGTON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2510 FCD DAD P

vs.

BEAMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file his amended complaint

pursuant to the court’s order of October 21, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 9, 2005 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the service of this order in which to file an

amended complaint. 

DATED: November 16, 2005.

DAD:bb

wash2510.36

Case 2:04-cv-02510-FCD-DAD Document 17 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 1
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 22 , 2020

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00607

- CV

BRIAN GUIDRY , Appellant

V.

GPE 1331 LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cau s e No. 1156853

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed S eptember 2, 2020 . The clerk’s

record was filed September 8, 2020

. No reporter ’ s record was taken

. No brief was

filed.

On November 10, 2020 , this cour t issued an order stating th at unless

appellant filed a brief on or before December 10, 2020 , the court would dismiss the

a ppeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).2

Appellant filed no brief or other response. Accordingly, the appeal is or dered

dismissed.

PER CUR IAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justice s Jewell and Poiss ant.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 annual report of National Residential Properties, Inc.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


         (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.

January 5, 2005

                                                  By:  /s/  RICHARD ASTROM
                                                       ---------------------
                                                       Richard Astrom
                                                       Chief Executive Officer


In connection with the annual report of National Residential Properties, Inc.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


         (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.


                                                  By:  /s/  CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
                                                       ------------------------
                                                     Christopher Astrom
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


January 5, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Leonard Barnes, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 590]

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated November 22, 1994, which, after a hearing, granted those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, and those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials are denied.

On February 4, 1994, at about 9:30 in the evening, a police officer on patrol in a marked vehicle observed the defendant walking on an otherwise deserted street in a commercial area of Mount Vernon. The defendant was carrying what appeared to be a fax or copy machine under his arm and partially concealed by his coat. Upon making eye contact with the officer, the defendant immediately fled, and he dropped the machine on the ground before the officer left his vehicle. The officer arrested the defendant after a short pursuit and recovered a fax machine. At police headquarters, the defendant admitted that he had taken the fax machine from an office which he had entered by climbing a fence and pushing aside a window air conditioner.

The Supreme Court granted suppression of the defendant’s statements and the fax machine as products of an illegal arrest. We disagree. The officer’s conduct cannot be considered unlawful *(see, e.g., People v Kosciusko,*149 AD2d 620). Since the defendant "deliberately divested (himself) of the property in such a way and under such circumstances that the officer had probable cause to believe that the merchandise was stolen” *(People v Chestnut,*91 AD2d 981, 982), there was probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. Moreover, the fax machine was abandoned by the defendant, and there is no basis for finding that the abandonment was nullified by illegal police conduct *(see, People v McCants,*175 AD2d 847; *People v Williams,*123 AD2d 652). Since the defendant’s arrest was based on probable cause, the statements he made at the police station were admissible *(see, People v Hughes,*174 AD2d 692). O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
No. 38879.

#### Protests 692311-G, etc., of Alms & Doepke Co. et al. (Cleveland, etc.).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 56480.

protests 177697-K, etc. (New York).

#### Cigogne, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 4, 2016

No. 04-16-00638-CV

CON-CORP CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C.,

Appellant

v.

J.D. Collision Express, L.L.C.,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI07146

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was due October 31, 2016, but it was not filed. The trial court clerk 

has filed a notification of late record stating the record was not filed because appellant has not 

paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and appellant is not 

entitled to the record without paying the fee. 

We order appellant Con-Corp Construction, LLC to provide written proof to this court by 

November 14, 2016 that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to 

the clerk have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to the clerk’s record 

without prepayment of the clerk’s fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 and 35.3(a). If appellant fails to 

file such proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 22

- 0190 V

UNPUBLISHED

MATTHEW J. MILLER

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: September 15, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Milton Clay Ragsdale, IV, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL , for Petitioner.

Zoe Wade , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On February 22, 2022

, Matthew J. Miller filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered injuries including Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) caused by an influenza (“f lu”) vaccine received on October 7, 2020

. Petition at 1

. Petitioner further alleges he received the vaccine in the United States, he has experienced sequela of his injury for longer than six months, and neither Petitioner

no r any other party has filed any other claim or lawsuit, or entered into any settlement, related to the injuries he sustained . Petition at ¶¶ 2, 13, 14 ; Ex. 1

. T he case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished R uling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the R uling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material f its within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2

On September 15, 2022

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set

forth in the Vaccin e Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if onset of GBS occurs between three and forty

- two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent

alterna tive cause

. ” Id. at 5

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
Before the Second Division,

September 26, 1950

No. 54685.

#### W. T. Grant Co. *v.*United States,

protests 537348-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Jonathan H. CohenName: Jonathan H. Cohen Date: May 11, 2015
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOL GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1927 FCD GGH P

vs.

K. PROSPER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 18, 2005, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve process on

defendant Pompey. Plaintiff’s completed USM-285 form stated that defendant Pompey was

located at Susanville State Penitentiary. 

On October 20, 2005, service was returned unexecuted. The returned USM-285

form stated that the U.S. Marshal was informed that defendant was now employed at the

California Institution for Women (CIW). Accordingly, the U.S. Marshal forwarded the forms for

service to CIW. Prison officials at CIW returned the forms to the U.S. Marshal stating that

defendant was no longer employed there. The U.S. Marshal then asked the CDC Locator to

search their records for defendant’s location. The CDC Locator informed the U.S. Marshal that

it could not locate defendant Pompey.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01927-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On December 7, 2005, the court granted plaintiff sixty days to provide additional

information for service of defendant Pompey. On January 25, 2006, plaintiff submitted a new

USM-285 form which again identified defendant as being located at Susanville State Prison. On

February 16, 2006, the court again ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve defendant Pompey. On

March 31, 2006, service was again returned unexecuted.

For the reasons discussed above, it does not appear that service of defendant

Pompey is possible. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the

date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed because

defendant Pompey cannot be served. 

DATED: 5/2/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

gar1927.ord

Case 2:04-cv-01927-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 59593.

protests 266302-K, etc. (New York).

#### Camilli Albert & Laloue, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

MARY JO GRAVES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

MICHAEL P. FARRELL

Senior Assistant Attorney General

STEPHEN G. HERNDON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

ALISON ELLE ALEMAN

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 117566

 1300 I Street

 P.O. Box 944255

 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

 Telephone: (916) 324-5164

 Fax: (916) 324-2960

Attorneys for Respondent

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GALLEGOS, Sr, 

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV-S-04-2741 MCE GGH P

ORDER

Respondent has filed a request to modify the briefing schedule.

1. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that Respondent’s request

is hereby granted.

2. The scheduling order is hereby modified for Respondent to file the response

within thirty-one (31) days from the date of this order.

Dated: 9/22/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

gall2741.po

Case 2:04-cv-02741-MCE -GGH Document 35 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.3
PROMISSORY NOTE

$1,200.00
Santa Ana, California
January 2, 2001

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Whitelight Technologies,
Inc. at 1516 Brookhollow Drive, Suite D, Santa Anna, CA 92705, or at such
other place as the holder hereof may designate in writing, the sum of one
thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00), with interest thereon at the rate of
10% per annum from the date hereof.  Principal and interest shall be due and
payable one year from the date hereof.

     Prepayment of this note may be made at any time without penalty.

     In the event of commencement of suit to enforce payment of this note, the
undersigned agrees to pay such additional sum as attorney's fees as the court
may adjudge reasonable.

     Mezzanine Investment Corporation

     By: /s/ Eric Chess Bronk
             Eric Chess Bronk, President