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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,637
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,335
<INVENTORY>                                    284,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               469,597
<PP&E>                                         820,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,415,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,599
<BONDS>                                        481,062
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,415,418
<SALES>                                      1,032,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,032,805
<CGS>                                        1,028,676
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,028,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               212,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              89,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (297,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       854
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (297,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   6,378
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 23,874
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (328,189)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1860

APRIL MCDANIEL, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; LISA BORROW, Manager at Greyhound; 

TOMMY SCHEWL, Area Manager at Greyhound; JANE DOE, a/k/a 

Leslie, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00130-FDW-CH) 

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

April McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Douglas McKnight, 

Robert Allen Sar, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 

 April McDaniel appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint alleging 

employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended. The court specifically dismissed the 

action noting that because it had not ruled on the merits of the 

compliant and was dismissing it for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, McDaniel was free to 

refile her complaint after curing these defects. A dismissal 

without prejudice is not reviewable by the court unless the 

reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no 

amendment to the complaint could cure its defects. See Domino 

Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 

1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In the present case, the district 

court properly found that McDaniel failed to allege facts 

establishing subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Because 

McDaniel could possibly cure these defects by amending her 

complaint, we dismiss this appeal. Id. 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 852 

To direct the Attorney General to establish a grant program for civilian 

traffic violation enforcement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2023 

Mr. TORRES of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to establish a grant program 

for civilian traffic violation enforcement. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Investing in Safer 

5 Traffic Stops Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GRANT FOR CIVILIAN TRAFFIC VIOLATION EN7 FORCEMENT. 

8 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 180 days after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney GenVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:59 Mar 03, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H852.IH H852

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 852 IH

1 eral shall establish a civilian traffic violation enforcement 

2 grant program (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Program’’) 

3 to provide funding to local, State, or Tribal government 

4 entities to ensure that the enforcement of traffic violations 

5 is carried out by a civilian or traffic monitoring tech6 nology, instead of a law enforcement officer. 

7 (b) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENT.—The Attorney General 

8 shall make grants under the Program to local, State, or 

9 Tribal government entities. 

10 (c) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Amounts from a grant 

11 awarded under the Program may only be used for the pur12 poses of ensuring that the enforcement of traffic violations 

13 is carried out by a civilian or traffic monitoring tech14 nology, including for the purchasing of such technology 

15 and the hiring of civilians. 

16 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

17 authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for each of 

18 the fiscal years 2024 through 2029 to carry out the Pro19 gram. 

20 (e) CIVILIAN DEFINED.—In this Act, the term ‘‘civil21 ian’’ means an individual employed by a local, State, or 

22 Tribal government entity to enforce traffic laws, who is 

23 not a law enforcement officer. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHARLES F. FORTUNE, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 293, 43 CMR 133

No. 23,619

January 22, 1971

*Lieutenant Arthur H. Rainey,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The accused was convicted by a special court-martial in 1968. The supervisory authority ordered a rehearing of the sentence.

The Government concedes that the sentence instructions at the rehearing were erroneous, as determined in United States v Tackett, 19 USCMA 85, 41 CMR 85 (1969). It also concedes that a deficiency in administrative procedures resulted in a twenty-month delay in service upon the accused of the decision of the board of review affirming the second sentence. In the meantime, the accused was otherwise separated from the service. Under the circumstances, no useful purpose is served by continuing the proceedings. United States v Ervin, 20 USCMA 97, 42 CMR 289 (1970).

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The plea of guilty and the sentence are set aside, and the charges are ordered dismissed.
EX-10.34




 Exhibit 10.34 

MultiVir,Inc. 
 (formerly
P53 Inc.) 
 Option Agreement 

Second Extension 
 MGH Case
No. 1289 
 Agreement No. A216775 

The parties to that certain Option Agreement effective as of May 28, 2013 extend by a first extension executed on or about May 28,
2014, hereby agree that pursuant to Article 1.2 therein, to extend the Option granted to p53, Inc., now known as MultiVir, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for a period of six months from November 28, 2014. 

Accordingly, MultiVir’s Option shall expire on May 28, 2015. 

All other terms and conditions of the Option Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Extension Agreement shall be incorporated
by reference into the Option Agreement and made a part thereof. 
 MultiVir shall forward by check the $5000 consideration for this
extension of its option from the Hospital within 5 working days of the execution of this Extension. The $5000 payment shall be credited to the amounts payable by MultiVir to Hospital for reimbursement of patent costs pursuant to Section 3.1(v)
of the Option Agreement 
 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives as of the effective date first above written. 
  

									
	For Hospital:	 		 	For MultiVir, Inc. formerly P53:
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Irene Abrams
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Nicholas Puro

	Irene Abrams	 		 	Nicholas Puro
	Executive Director, Partners Healthcare	 		 	President and Chief Operating Officer
	Research Ventures & Licensing	 		 		 	
			
	Date: as of November 26, 2014	 		 	Date: as of November 26, 2014


  
 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6578** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. THOMAS LAGENE FRANKLIN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3:06

- cr - 00007

- RJC

- 1; 3:08

- cv - 00051

- RJC )

Submitted : July 26, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas Lagene Franklin, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
T homas Lagene Franklin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1 ) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the distri ct court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We hav e independently reviewed the record and conclude that Franklin 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 legal3 contentions are a dequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 10.3

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Mirae Corporation on Form 20-F for the
year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Hyung Yun Lee, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.

Date: June 30, 2003


/s/ Hyung Yun Lee
------------------------
Hyung Yun Lee
Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Sherman, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 231]

—Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (Kane, J.), rendered April 26, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree and promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to two separate crimes set forth in a superior court information, to wit: the aggravated sexual abuse of a six-year-old girl and promoting prison contraband by knowingly receiving two hacksaw blades while in the Sullivan County Jail. Defendant was sentenced, as agreed, to two concurrent sentences of imprisonment, the greater being 5 to 10 years. Defendant appeals, contending that the superior court information was jurisdictionally defective.

Defendant contends that the written waiver of indictment (CPL 195.20) failed to properly identify the pending charges on which he was bound over pending action of the Grand Jury. CPL 195.20 does not mandate that the offenses for which defendant was held for action of a Grand Jury be identified within the statutory written waiver of indictment. An examination of the record reveals that defendant was being held for Grand Jury action at the time of the waiver on both of the two unrelated matters *(cf., People v Rancha,*193 AD2d 1124 [Appeal No. 3]). Defendant further contends that his prior criminal record might have qualified him as a persistent felony offender and, as a result, for a life sentence on the matters upon which he was held pending Grand Jury action. We find no merit to defendant’s contention that the mere possibility of persistent felony offender treatment operates to oust County Court of jurisdiction to proceed upon a superior court informa*814tion because of the constitutional limitations on the use of waivers of indictments involving offenses punishable by life imprisonment *(see,*NY Const, art I, § 6; *People v Dickerson,*201 AD2d 400, *revd on other grounds*85 NY2d 870; *see also, People v Melendez,*210 AD2d 74, *lv denied*85 NY2d 940).

After defendant’s guilty plea, defendant and his attorney stated on the record that certain items of potential evidence had been discussed between them. We find no basis to conclude that the colloquy suggests anything in regard to the effectiveness of the legal representation afforded defendant. The record is devoid of any indication that defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Flores,*84 NY2d 184).

Cardona, P. J., White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 61410.

protests 266583-K, etc. (New York).

#### Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of goatskins and sheepskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Nawi Noonoo & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 57, C. D. 1904), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Robinson Antonio MARTI-XIQUES, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 82-6141

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 27, 1984.

Stephen H. Broudy, Miami, Fla., for petitioner.

Lauri Steven Filppu, U.S. Dept, of Justice, James A. Hunolt, Dept. I.N.S., Washington, D.C., Elena R. Stinson, San Juan, P.R., for respondent.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion September 9, 1988, 11th Cir., 1983, 713 F.2d 1511)

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, FAY and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The petition of Immigration and Naturalization Service for rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion at 713 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir.1983) is VACATED and the case is assigned to the oral argument calendar and classified as a Class III case.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  annual  report of Pacific  Fuel Cell  Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
the  undersigned,  in the capacity  and on the date  indicated  below,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C./  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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.



Dated:  April 18, 2006                      s/Ken Inouye
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Ken Inouye, Secretary/Treasurer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133163 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MICHAEL FAULMAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 133163 COA: 269287 Macomb CC: 04-004691-NO AMERICAN HEARTLAND HOMEBUILDER, L.L.C., Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and

JAG CONSTRUCTION, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 4, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
(Reap. Dec. 8478)

#### United States *v.*Cohn Hall Marx Co.-Div. of United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc.

Entry No. 978940.

(Decided August 4, 1955)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Sharretls, Paley & Carter*for the defendant.

*Ford,*Judge:

The appeal listed aboye has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that, at the date of exportation of the involved merchandise, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States as follows:

> *403Medium color, Grade “A,” 100 yards, at U. S. $2.19 per yard, net packed.

> Pastel color, Grade “B,” 50 yards, and Grade “A,” 50 yards at U. S. $2.20 per yard, net packed.

> Super White Fuji Silk, 40", Grade “A,” 100 yards at U. S. $1.00 per yard, net packed.

It has been further agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at or about the date of exportation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper export value for the involved merchandise to be as follows:

> Medium color, Grade “A,” 100 yards, at U. S. $2.19 per yard, net packed.

> Pastel color, Grade “B,” 50 yards, and Grade *“A,”*50 yards, at TL S. $2.20 per yard, net packed.

> Super White Fuji Silk, 40", Grade *“A,”*100 yards at U. S. $1 per yard, net packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5526]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-357-000]


Liberty Gas Storage LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

March 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 16, 2007, Liberty Gas Storage LLC 
(Liberty) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets attached to the filing, with an 
effective date of April 15, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#175152455458797b7e797244626767786563577172657439707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd8b889f8e82a3a1a4a3a89eb8bdbda2bfb98daba8bfaee3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5526 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
June 27, 1938

No. 38922.

Suit 4138.

#### J. *M. Da Rocha v. United States.*

Abstract 36663 affirmed.