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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 213 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to 

Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2005 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. DOMENICI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain 

Federal land to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.

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 ‘‘Rio Arriba County 

5 Land Conveyance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means the 

9 County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. 
2

•S 213 IS

1 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en2 titled ‘‘Alcalde Proposed Land Transfer’’ and dated 

3 September 23, 2004. 

4 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

5 the Secretary of the Interior. 

6 SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, 

7 NEW MEXICO. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (c), not 

9 later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

10 the Secretary shall convey to the County, all right, title, 

11 and interest of the United States in and to the land (in12 cluding any improvements to the land) described in sub13 section (b). 

14 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land referred to in 

15 subsection (a) consists of approximately 150.86 acres of 

16 land located on the Sebastian Martin Land Grant in the 

17 vicinity of Alcalde, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, as de18 picted on the map. 

19 (c) CONDITIONS.— 

20 (1) IN GENERAL.—The land conveyed under 

21 subsection (a) shall be treated as public land for the 

22 purposes of the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly 

23 known as the ‘‘Recreation and Public Purposes 

24 Act’’) (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.) 
3

•S 213 IS

1 (2) CONSIDERATION.—The amount of consider2 ation for the conveyance of land under subsection 

3 (a) shall be determined by the Secretary consistent 

4 with section 2(a) of the Act of June 14, 1926 (com5 monly known as the ‘‘Recreation and Public Pur6 poses Act’’) (43 U.S.C. 869–1(a)). 

7 (3) AGREEMENT.—Before conveying the land 

8 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into 

9 an agreement with the County that indemnifies the 

10 United States from all liability of the United States 

11 arising from the land conveyed.

Æ
SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES OF THE LISTED FUND

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

                         DWS Money Market Prime Series

On March 31, 2008, the shareholders of the fund approved replacing the fund's
fundamental restriction regarding concentration, with the following:

The fund may not concentrate its investments in any particular industry
(excluding US Government Obligations), as that term is used in the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended, and as interpreted or modified by the
regulatory authority having jurisdiction from time to time; except that the fund
will invest more than 25% of its total assets in the obligations of banks and
other financial institutions.

This change will be effective on or about May 1, 2008.

The following replaces the third to last paragraph in the section "Principal
Investments":

The fund will invest at least 25% of its total assets in obligations of banks
and other financial institutions.

The following disclosure supplements the disclosure in the section "The Main
Risks of Investing in the Fund":

Concentration Risk. Because the fund will invest more than 25% of its total
assets in the obligations of banks and other financial institutions, it may be
vulnerable to setbacks in that industry. Banks and other financial institutions
are highly dependent on short-term interest rates and can be adversely affected
by downturns in the US and foreign economies or changes in banking regulations.



               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference


                                                              [DWS SCUDDER LOGO]
                                                             Deutsche Bank Group


April 3, 2008
DMMF-3601
Exhibit 31.2
 
 
 I, Andrew P. Kaplan, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Audible, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(3) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 May 17, 2004

By:
/s/ Andrew P. KaplanName: Andrew P. KaplanTitle:   Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration (Principal Financial Officer)
#### MILLER’S THRIFTWAY STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. Iris M. HOHNSBEEN, Respondent.

No. 40461.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 15, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 84.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7224

JAMES JUNIOR ALLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; HELEN F. FAHEY,

Chairwoman of Virginia Parole Board; JAMES L.

JENKINS, JR.; MS. RUSSELL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-03-27)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Junior Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Junior Allen appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Allen v.

Robinson, No. CA-03-27 (E.D. Va. July 2, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         7340914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1050873
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (512826)
<INVENTORY>                                     846403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8725364
<PP&E>                                          118491
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1084412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9928267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           633592
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         12576
<OTHER-SE>                                     9282099
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9928267
<SALES>                                         433759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                475130
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1731341
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1256211)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1256211)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1256211)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

V.B., the Father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-1067

[October 15, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Yael Gamm, Judge; L.T. Case No. 16-3010 CJ DP.

Bernard R. Appleman of the Law Office of Bernard R. Appleman, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Kristie L. Hatcher-Bolin of Gray Robinson, P.A., Lakeland, and 

Thomasina F. Moore, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem 

Program.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee Department of 

Children and Families.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
0601061 CHICKEN_FLY 1/18/06 4:24 PM Page 7 P

Did you know?

Be extra cautio
on wide streets where $
traffic moves rapidly.

a cue
of — USDepartment oftfansportaton,
Federal Highway Administration nzat
~ National Highviay Traffic Safety Administration

— Fawa-sA-05-022 :



FLY 1/18/06 4:24 PM Page 8 p

> =

Tenga aun mas
aS

| cuidado en calles anchas : eee ea |
donde el trafico va mas co
#### AIRLIFT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. RYDER TRUCK LINES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-1111.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 15, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2304

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Lige Bush, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 6, 2004 Filed: March 11, 2004

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lige Bush appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly making or causing to be made a false or fictitious written statement in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2), and 2. The district court sentenced Bush to 70 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release on both counts, to be served concurrently. Bush’s counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders-2- v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by accepting Bush’s plea and then sentencing him within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. In a pro se supplemental brief, Bush asserts that his counsel was ineffective. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Because Bush did not object below that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) (consideration and acceptance of guilty pleas), we review the acceptance of Bush’s plea for plain error, and we find none. Thus, we reject counsel’s argument that the district court erred in accepting Bush’s guilty plea. SeeUnited States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002) (defendant who allows Rule 11 error to pass without objection in trial court must satisfy plain-error rule, i.e. , that claimed plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights). As to the remaining arguments, the ineffective-assistance argument is not properly before us,
see United States v. Martin , 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995) (except where result would be plain miscarriage of justice, ineffective-assistance claims should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings), and the sentencing argument does not raise any reviewable issues, cf. United States v. Woodrum , 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (where appellant did not argue his sentence was imposed in violation of law or because of incorrect application of Guidelines, and where applicable sentencing range did not span more than 24 months, appeals court had no appellate jurisdiction to entertain argument that sentence was improperly imposed at top of Guidelines range). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-K of Poore  Brothers,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
Eric J. Kufel (the Company's  President and Chief Executive  Officer) and Thomas
W. Freeze  (the  Company's  Senior  Vice  President,  Chief  Financial  Officer,
Secretary and Treasurer) hereby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to the
best of his knowledge, that:

     (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities 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 of the
Company.


                                       By: /s/ Eric J. Kufel
                                           -------------------------------------
Dated: March 28, 2003                      Eric J. Kufel
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       By: /s/ Thomas W. Freeze
                                           -------------------------------------
Dated: March 28, 2003                      Thomas W. Freeze
                                           Senior Vice President, Chief
                                           Financial Officer, Treasurer and
                                           Secretary
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.24

                    [LOGO] Murdock Communications Corporation

                         PO Box 412 Marion IA 52302-0412

January 27, 2003

Mr. Dave Kirkpatrick
346 Piney Point
Houston TX 77024
FAX: 713-953-9166

RE: Conversion of Service Fees to Equity

Dear Dave:

This letter memorializes your oral agreement to convert any unpaid compensation
for your services to the Company into Company common stock at the effective time
of the proposed merger with Polar Molecular Corporation.

For all services rendered on or prior to July 31, 2002, all unpaid amounts shall
be converted into the number of shares of Company common stock as determined by
dividing the amount due for such services by $3.03, rounding up any fractional
shares to the nearest whole share. The amount which would be converted through
July 31, 2002, is $17,000.00 which will convert to 5,611 shares of Company
common stock.

For all services rendered after July 31, 2002, all unpaid amounts shall be
converted into the number of shares of Company common stock as determined by
dividing the amount due for such services by $1.00, rounding up any fractional
shares to the nearest whole share. For purposes of illustration only, should the
merger become effective on March 31, 2003, you would be due approximately $8,000
for post-July 31, 2002, services. This would result in a conversion of the
amount due you into 8,000 shares of Company common stock.

Please acknowledge below, that you are in complete agreement with the terms of
this letter, and return an executed copy to me.

Sincerely,


Nancy Davis
Staff Accountant

<PAGE>

                                 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I, Dave Kirkpartrick, a Director of Murdock Communications Corporation,
acknowledge that I understand and agree to the terms of the attached letter.


----------------
Dave Kirkpatrick
#### O. Sanford JASPER, as Tax Collector of Pinellas County, Florida, and ex officio Tax Collector of the City of Clearwater, Florida; Mac S. Haines, as Tax Assessor of Pinellas County, Florida, and ex officio Tax Assessor of the City of Clearwater, Florida, and Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. LEONARD L. FARBER COMPANY, Inc., a New York corporation, Appellee.

No. 68-378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 2, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1997-KYZEN CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         523,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  839,877
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,160
<INVENTORY>                                    345,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,747,623
<PP&E>                                       1,421,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,001,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          505,805
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,068
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,445,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,001,757
<SALES>                                      5,877,974
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,877,974
<CGS>                                        2,536,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,536,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,074
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    67,503
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of National Golf Properties, Inc. on Form S-8 (and related prospectus) (File
No. 33-67350), Form S-8 (File No. 333-33775) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-
67403), of our reports dated February 4, 1999, except for Note 19, as to which
the date is March 31, 1999 and January 29, 1999, except for Note 15, as to
which the date is March 31, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of National Golf Properties, Inc.
and American Golf Corporation and Subsidiaries, respectively, as of December
31, 1998 and 1997, and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1998, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.
 
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
April 14, 1999
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-41152 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FELIPE RIOS-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-00-CR-528-1

-------------------- April 10, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Felipe Rios-Mendoza appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rios-Mendoza argues that 1) his 1998 removal was simplya reinstatement of his 1967 deportation, thereby relieving RiosMendoza of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)’s penalty enhancement, and 2) the superseding indictment against Rios-Mendoza was defective because it failed to allege general intent. Rios-Mendoza’s claims are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See UnitedNo. 00-41152 -2- States v. Nava-Perez , 242 F.3d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Guzman-Ocampo , 236 F.3d 233, 237 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Rios-Mendoza’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.