alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### T. W. STONE, Jr. v. Bill ECHOLS, Echols Trucking, Inc., a Corporation, and Robert Lamar Turner.

Civ. 863.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 5, 1977.

BRADLEY, Judge.

Upon remand to this court by the Supreme Court of Alabama it is considered that this cause should be reversed in accordance with the opinion rendered by the supreme court on September 9, 1977, 351 So.2d 902, in the above styled cause, and remanded to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 224 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 5302 Galveston Road in Houston, Texas, as 

the ‘‘Vanessa Guille ́n Post Office Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 224 RFS

1 SECTION 1. VANESSA GUILLE ́ N POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 5302 Galveston Road in Hous4 ton, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Vanessa Guille ́n Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Vanessa Guille ́n Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# Non-UGLG Distribution Template
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0196

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DANE ANTHONY GIBSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 5, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 27 2022

05/27/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0196
R±

8 CEU£ ZL-F-I }Zoo BAKEA ST
CAUSE M0> /JP,f9lS6 ~A MO, JH-rt-OOLlZZ-CA CounTY Count o l#H TH 

### tdcj -io SlO Nuw&ejZ -02926,020 DATES H-13-IS 

# RECEIVED IN COURTOFCRHWNA1 APPEALS JUL 1 « 2015 

## iT/liAL XufiGEIh(OtiO/lfiP>LE LESLIE &/ZOCK-//9/£!<?
moTicf romp^A/^Ji fiLEb oi4 OecemqeA JLTHJo/3 qmiTed siates District clerks office p.O,/SnX LIOIO /-/oUSToM. IEXAS 7720S>-/0I0 

### Homormle Sim Lake, PresiOi^g. 

### MV/O ^ GA/LDfjy* CLERK. Lorenzo D/JAyME .joMES v. {Jilljam sTepheMS} Director T'ncS-rjf) the case aI/maer. is 1q/3-c\/-o3G>73 MATURE OF THE CLAIM JS HABEAS CORPUS hiQ< IS30 

### .Lme^zclJIlIb^jl Somes \j, qeficeA-M. /VM5JLJli£^ Vase Momkm. is 4* is -r.\/-03G72 kIaTu/ie oF THE

CLAim ClMlE RlGHIS A/O.T« .5/5*0
A 3JIA /JDS PASSED THAT CoBlFlEf) IHE HOLE of 

## \LEMiTjj/9aJFSSEfJTiAL BMF> LoMG-HELD fiOcTRME IHfiT

PF.rtoiRFS fiXnoaE To r.oMs r/?/)£ osxectjveas/ AmAlGunnS CRimitiAL STAinTES IM FAVOR Oh THE 

### bEF'E^r)^T] fJITH THE PROL/FEMTioM OF FRj/n/sJAL OFFEMSE foR &EMMIQR MeVER ISEFoRE CRlMiMALiZEb 

### WD OFTeM VAGOEh/ i^fUTEA* ITIS (fflPofiJA^TTo GRAtfT 

## PRoTeQTioM 1& lAbrtlbUALS U)Uo Alfif HME aJEVER RFALllEb THAI THE/lJERE COfWfiiTlMG ACRIMEj£Z rtPATiMOEl
/a/ A MMRol) FREE-^PBECll R/JLIMG} THE DMlTED St/tTzS 

## SriPRE/nz COURTMADE IIALlJflE HARDER WoMDA'/,WME 1ST Zdis 7o proszcote people for, wkimg iHR.mTmi.MG SJhTEJYLEAJJS^lAHlA .CJML-0.FJkE_EiR5± 

### A/y&Jfi/VEMTj THE moiiT 1^ A 7-2 GeC/SIOM REVERSE XkEXZ)MS/JLC7JJ3J±J2E^ UltinSE -E&£TL£jD£AJh5JMGS SEEFIeO IHRlMJJEtUblG To HJ1 £,3JZAi^GEL\^AlEIL^jLE£^Cq^^^ 

### To PeoVE THAT THE: SPeaK&L //AD Some AidARE1^1ESS.THAT MuUA5„Jl(iiM^SamETH.jdG^ 

## L&&JlJL)LnEME£M^D£^ RES/JLTS OF ^ P)GTlJiTHouT GDM^lDEjeiMG Tfi£ DeFeMOAMTS 

### MEMTAL .TFaTE, CHIEF So^TlCE JbHM R.O&ERTS JR./JAoTE iJMl^S^OojMBUlLU^JLM. CQMSClQUSJlQJSE^£MldALt_JllL. 

## AEASQMjaIG IM ROBERTS l7?AJbRlT/ OPlMlOhi J7)IGHT//£/£ \CJ77IERS IM SIMILAR rJRcumsTAMCES. STEVeM £• SHAPIRO^
i \Matiomal Legal. Director of the pfiericaiJ civil. Liae&Ties 

# \l)MioM;Praisea The DecisioM asome ThftPrqPeRLj i£gCac^Z^£_Z^JlJ^^-iML^5 FOR GEMIMIES REQUIRED THE CoVERMlripMr To PROVE CRimiMRL iaJTEMT BEFORE 

## ^PlfiTiMG SoFiEOME Ihi TAIL,, IHAT PRlMClPLE IS ESPEC/ALLf imPORTAMT CJHEM A PRPSEiStiTioM IS BASED OM A AeFeMDAMIS AMDS SHAPIRO SAID iM A STATEMENT XOBERTS MIQTeD 

### THATFloMiS CoHVlCTiod OJAS PREW/SE SoLeL/ gWm. COMliMUEJ


### Houd HIS STATEMENT'S POSTED UPDID BE OMDeR

### STOOD By A REASnMAfiLE PERSOM, ROBERTS SAID THAT' \LJHILE THE REASOMABLE PERSOM STANDARD U)AS A



## FAFILIAR FEAIURE OFCIVIL llABlLliy l/J IQRI Uk)} iTJS 1/JGoMS/STEMF iJlTH IHE CoHVEdlioMAl \8JSM)lRJSJmjMTCEQR^ &ILS0ME.Ml£D.iM£I)-O-ti±G-^

THE. DMlTED SlATKS SUPREME GoURT IS THE 

### Jj/J^/ElTttELiMW^j^-^ l!SL_£E&Oi£eDu
I#£_ZJ/^j[EO^J^^^ IQoMGRESS SHALL. SPAKE MO LAlJ AMltiGlhJG FREE

SPEECH. THE ,<T7/97E OF TEXAS AMD THE LEGISLATE 

### SRAJJrH HAS JTIADE ALAO) AAR1DGIMG /A/ ^IGifT 16 EREE^SMeOL^


# -J&iCERELy JftJE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIAN FENG GUO,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 72858

Agency No. A088

- 324

- 983

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jian Feng Guo , a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigrati on Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 72858

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. We review de novo claims of due

process violations, Cruz Rendon v. Holder
, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010)
,
and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the

standards governing adverse credibility determinatio ns created by the REAL ID

Act
, Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on Guo’s inadequate explanations for his acquisition of a passport in 2006;

his repeated mis

- statements and significant differences in his testimony as to basic

facts
, including his daughter’s date of birth and various employment dates ; and an
inconsistency as to whether he was arrested in the morning or the evening. See id.

at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the

circumstances). Guo’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata

v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, i n the absence of credible

testimony, in this case, Guo’s asylum and withh olding of removal claims fail. See

Huang v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We reject Guo ’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights by
considering the asylum officer’s interview notes. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246

(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Finally, w e lack jurisdiction to consider Guo’s contentions concerning his3 13

- 72858

CAT claim because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review

claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Artesyn Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending September 27, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Richard J. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
Company.





/s/    RICHARD J.
THOMPSONRichard J. Thompson Chief
Financial Officer





November 6, 2002
#### Benny Carroll TAYLOR v. STATE.

No. 38275.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 470.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000072741
<NAME> NORTHEAST UTILITIES AND SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    6,223,241
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    782,221
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         864,587
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     2,685,584
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,555,633
<COMMON>                                       684,506
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      933,894
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            700,822
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,175,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          197,072
<PREFERRED>                                    136,200
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         3,292,237
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              40,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  354,250
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       24,884
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    170,351
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                38,587
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               3,982,830
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               10,555,633
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    2,808,096
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            44,344
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,544,042
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,614,273
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        193,823
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              (5,939)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 213,771
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       200,190
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,581
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     20,281
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   (6,700)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         572,876
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        



</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

130 

KA 11-02011 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSE ALVARADO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

CINDY F. INTSCHERT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WATERTOWN (KRISTYNA S. MILLS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H.

Martusewicz, J.), rendered August 8, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the

third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), defendant contends that County

Court erred in admitting certain recorded conversations in evidence at

trial before he pleaded guilty. By pleading guilty, defendant

forfeited his right to seek our review of that contention. “ ‘A

guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to

appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the 

proceedings’ ” (People v Leary, 70 AD3d 1394, 1395, lv denied 14 NY3d

889, quoting People v Fernandez, 67 NY2d 686, 688). “This is so

because a defendant’s ‘conviction rests directly on the sufficiency of

his plea, not on the legal or constitutional sufficiency of any

proceedings which might have led to his conviction after trial’ . . .

A guilty plea will thus . . . effect a forfeiture of the right to

revive certain claims made prior to the plea” (People v Hansen, 95

NY2d 227, 230). Here, defendant challenges the admissibility of the

recordings, both at the audibility hearing and at the trial. Issues

arising from an audibility hearing are forfeited by a plea of guilty

(see People v Jiminez, 277 AD2d 956, 956-957, lv denied 96 NY2d 784),

as are challenges to evidentiary rulings made during trial (see People

v Davis, 99 AD3d 1228, 1229).
-2- 130 

KA 11-02011 

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 10022.

#### Loftus *v.*The State of Ohio.

(Decided January 15, 1907.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton County.

*629
      *Mr. E. M. Ballard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Rulison, Morris, Sawyer & Rose,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### J. N. W., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. II-471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 17, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Stephen Lindsey Gorman and Sidney L. Matthew, Special Asst. Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Martha J. Cook, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.

A juvenile appeals from a conviction for uttering a forged instrument, Section 831.-02, Florida Statutes (1977). It is contended in his behalf that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that he knew the check he presented for cash was forged. We find, on the contrary, that the circumstantial evidence of appellant’s guilty knowledge was sufficient to withstand his motion for judgment of acquittal. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, it appears that appellant presented a Coastal Hay Company payroll check, payable to Sammy Helms, at the Wagon Wheel Lounge. The check was forged and Sammy Helms was, for all purposes here, fictitious. The check bore the purported endorsement of “Sammy Helms” when appellant presented it; and appellant’s presentation of and statements concerning the check intimated to the recipient that he, appellant, was the payee, an employee of the maker, and that the endorsement was his own. If the jury could find that appellant’s presentation and statements concerning the check were calculated to intimate false assurances, the jury could properly have found that 'appellant had guilty knowledge that the check was a forgery. We need not consider whether “mere possession” of the forged instrument gave rise to an inference of guilty knowledge sufficient for the jury. It may well be doubted that there are or can be well-tried prosecutions of guilty defendants in which “mere possession” is all that is shown; but it is sufficient for present purposes that this is not such a case.

There was no error in the order for restitution prior to release of appellant by the Division of Youth Services. Section 39.-ll(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1977).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
EX-10.21(b)




 Exhibit 10.21(b) 

Certain identified information has been omitted from this exhibit because it is not material and of the type that the registrant treats
as private or confidential. [***] indicates that information has been omitted. 
 AMENDMENT 1 to GRANT AGREEMENT Investment ID [***] 

 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 
  

			
	 AMENDMENT INFORMATION

		
	 Agreement to be Amended:
	  	 Grant agreement between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

and Greenlight Biosciences, effective July 20, 2020, and

bearing Investment [***]

	 Amendment Purpose:
	  	 No Cost Extension

	 Amendment Date:
	  	 Date of this email

	 Amended “End Date”:
	  	 The term of the Agreement is extended by changing the End

Date to May 31, 2022


 THIS AMENDMENT amends, and is made part of, the above-referenced Agreement and is effective as of the date of this
email. Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment will have the meaning provided in the Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict
between the Agreement and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment will prevail. 
 UPDATED REPORTING & PAYMENT SCHEDULE 

This Amendment notifies You that the reporting and/or payment schedule for Your grant has changed. Your updated Reporting & Payment Schedule is
deleted and replaced with the following: 
  

									
	 REPORTING & PAYMENT SCHEDULE

					
	
Investment
Period
	  	 Target, Milestone,
or
Reporting Deliverable
	  	 Due By
	  	 Payment Date
	  	 Payment Amount 

(U.S.$)

					
		  	Countersigned Agreement	  		  	PAID	  	[***]
					
		  	ITS Quarterly Progress and Financial Updates	  	Quarterly	  		  	
					
	 Start Date to

December 31, 2020
	  	ER Report	  	Completed	  	 September

2021
	  	[***]
		  	 Go/No-Go Milestone: Established use of minimal system

for [***]
	  	 September 1,

2021

					
	 January 1, 2020 to

December 31, 2021
	  		  	 February 28,

2022
	  		  	
					
	 January 1, 2022 to End

Date
	  	ER Report	  	Within 60 days of End Date	  		  	
		
	 Total Grant Amount
	  	[***]
Exhibit 23.1  HALL&COMPANYCertified Public Accountants, Inc.
TAX, FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES111 PACIFICA, SUITE 300
IRVINE, CA 92618
(949) 910-HALL (4255)
FAX (949) 910-4256
WWW.HALLCPAS.COM     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-222907 and No. 333-224486) and in the Registration Statement on the Form S-8 (File No. 333-210910) of General Cannabis Corporation (the Company) of our report dated March 12, 2018, relating to our audits of the Companys consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and for the years then ended, included in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2017, which report includes an explanatory paragraph regarding a change in accounting principle during the year ended December 31, 2017.   /s/ Hall & Company   Irvine, CA May 25, 2018
EXHIBIT 12



CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)



_____________________________________________________________________________
Twelve Months to March 31                                              1997
_____________________________________________________________________________
Earnings:
  Net income................................................         $288,964
  Add income taxes..........................................          142,918
                                                                     ________
    Income before income taxes..............................          431,882
  Distributed income from unconsolidated investee,
    less equity in earnings thereof.........................             (113)
                                                                     ________
    Subtotal................................................          431,769
                                                                     ________

  Add fixed charges:
    Interest on long-term debt, including amortization
      of debt discount and expense less premium.............          103,729
    Other interest expense..................................            7,668
    Portion of rentals deemed to be representative
      of the interest factor................................           10,097
    Fixed charges associated with 50% projects with debt....            2,090
                                                                     ________
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES.........................................          123,584
                                                                     ________
TOTAL EARNINGS..............................................         $555,353
                                                                     ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES..........................             4.49
                                                                     ========
_____________________________________________________________________________