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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. at December 31, 1999, and its statement of
income for the twelve months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the Form-10K of CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. for the twelve months
ended December 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         936,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                    55,896
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      16,595,061
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,902,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,443,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,448,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,443,276
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,476,360
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  773,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,385,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,385,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,385,067
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### SOUTHWESTERN PALM BEACH COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a Glades General Hospital, Appellant, v. Marguerite L. BAYLISS and her husband, Milton Bayliss, Appellees.

No. 72-76.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 9, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Hugh MacMillan, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-02-1997
<CASH>                                             597
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                       276
<INVENTORY>                                     48,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,751
<PP&E>                                         262,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                 114,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,814
<BONDS>                                         71,883
<COMMON>                                         8,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,575
<SALES>                                        182,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,123
<CGS>                                          147,494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,117
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,642
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,423
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,219
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,219
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51065 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. AD O N J O SH U A M U N I Z , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8
- CR- 1 2 7
- ALL B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * A don Jo shua M uni z pl ea d ed g ui l t y t o o ne c ountof pos se ss i on o f

an u n regi st ered f

i rearm . Th e di st ri ctcourt sentenced h i m t o serve 120 m on t h s’ im p r is o n m e n t, w h ic h e x c e e d s th e a d v is o r yg u id e lin e s s e n te n c in gra n g e . M u n iz c o n te n d s h is s e n t e n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le . T h e G o v e r n m e n t m a in ta in s th is c hal l enge i s bar r ed by M uni z’ w aiver of hi s appel l at e r i ght s. M uni z r epl i es t hat United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 26, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51065

2 t he G ove rn m entl os ti t s r i ghtt o i nvoke t he w aiverby st andi ng s i l entat s e n te n c in gw h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l yin fo r m e dh im th a t h e co u ld ap pea lhi s s en t en ce. O u r c ou rtrevi ew s d e novo w he t he rt he w aive ro f a r i ghtt o a ppe ali n a w r i t t e n pl e a ag r e e m e ntpr e ve nt s an a ppe alf r o m b e i ng t ak e n. Uni t e d S t at e s v. B aym on , 3 1 2 F .3 d 7 2 5 , 7 2 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A r e v ie w o f th e re c o r ds h o w s : M u n iz k n o w in g lya n dv o lu n ta r ilyw a iv e dh is rig h t t o a p p e a l h is s e n te n c e ; a n d th e cla im h e n o w ra is e s i s b a r r e db yth e la n g u a g e o f th e w a iv e r . S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Bond , 414 F . 3d 542 , 544 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) . Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r el ated m i s s t at e m e nt s a ts e nt e nc i ng do no ta f fe c tt he v al i di t y o f

t he w aive r , a nd t he G o v e r n m e n t’s s ile n c e d o e s n o t p r e c lu d e itf r o m in v o k in gth e w a iv e r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Melan con , 9 72 F . 2d 566 , 568 ( 5th C i r. 199 2) . A ccor di n gl y, consi derati on o f M u n iz ’ch a lle n g e to h is s e n te n c e is p r e c lu d e db yth e w a iv e r . Se ei d. ; seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. S t ory , 4 3 9 F .3d 2 2 6 , 2 3 0 -3 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). DI S M I S S ED .
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL ROMAN-SOTO, AKA Paul Roman, 

AKA Paul Soto, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-71230 

Agency No. A200-963-647 

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.

Paul Roman-Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

 

* 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 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-71230 

denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th 

Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Roman-Soto’s motion to 

reopen for his failure to establish prejudice where, even without the alleged 

ineffective assistance, he would be ineligible for cancellation of removal because 

he had not accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence. See Iturribarria v. 

INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (“To show a deprivation of due process 

caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the alien must show that counsel’s 

ineffective performance prejudiced h[im].” (citation omitted)).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in not making a finding as to whether 

Roman-Soto’s former attorney persuaded him to testify falsely, where the 

determination that he was not prejudiced by any ineffective assistance was 

dispositive. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA is 

not required to make findings on issues that are unnecessary to the result it 

reaches). Roman-Soto’s contention that it is unclear whether the BIA considered 

the bar complaint filed against his former attorney is not supported by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Roman-Soto’s unexhausted contentions

regarding the quality of his former attorney’s briefing before the agency and 

whether the former attorney’s performance prejudiced him with regard to being 

denied voluntary departure. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 
3 16-71230 

2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented to the 

agency in the alien’s proceedings).

To the extent Roman-Soto challenges the agency’s prior determinations on 

direct appeal, this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); 

Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (the filing of a 

subsequent motion does not affect the finality or reviewability of a previous order 

of removal).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
# U nitedStates C ou rt o f App eal s For th e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-1534 ANTONIO APONTE-TORRES ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on April 14, 2006 is corrected as follows: Starting at page 15, line 21, and going through page 16, line 12, delete the following text: notice of app e a l refers only to the district court's order of dismissal, entered February 14, 2005. It makes no m e n t i o n o f t h e s e p a r a t e o r d e r s t a y i n gd i s c o v e r y, entered December 1, 2004. That is game, set, and match. By rule, a notice of appeal must specify the particular order to which the appeal is addressed. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (mandating that a notice of appeal "desi g n ate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed"). Fail u r e to identify a given order undermines an appellant's ability to dispute that order in the court of appeals. See, e.g., Shelby v. Superformance Int'l, Inc., 435 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2006); Kotler v. Am. Tobacco Co., 981 F.2d 7, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1992). The plaintiffs offer no persuasive reason why the denominate-or-waive rule should not be enforced in this instance. We add, moreover, t h at even if this assignment of error were preserved, it would fail. The plaintiffs' The resulting sentence should begin "The plaintiffs' attack"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 8, 2005

Clifford H. Aronson, Esquire

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Four Times Square

New York, New York 10036

Re: Cemex, S.A. de C.V., Docket No. C-4131

Dear Mr. Aronson:

This letter responds to the June 7, 2005, Application that you filed on behalf of Cemex,

S.A. de C.V. (“Cemex”) seeking prior approval by the Federal Trade Commission

(“Commission”) of the divestiture of the Tucson, Arizona “Ready-Mix Concrete Divestiture

Assets,” as that term is defined in the March 25, 2005, order in Docket No. C-4131 (“Order”), to

California Portland Cement Company. The Order requires prior Commission approval of the

divestiture by Cemex.

After consideration of the proposed divestiture as set forth in the Application and

supplemental documents, as well as other available information, the Commission has determined

to approve the proposed divestiture of the Ready-Mix Concrete Divestiture Assets to CPC. 

In according its approval, the Commission has relied upon the information submitted and

representations made in connection with Cemex’s Application, and has assumed them to be

accurate and complete.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

cc: Renee D. Benjamin, Esquire

 Senior Counsel

 California Portland Cement Company

 2025 E. Financial Way

 Glendora, California 91741
#### Mr. and Mrs. Monty LEWIS, Mr. and Mrs. Landis Yerty, and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Mardelli, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Florida, as and constituting the Zoning Board of Hillsborough County, Florida, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, and Sweetwater Utility Corporation, a corporation, Appellees.

No. 69-183.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Levine & Freedman, Tampa, for appellants.

Robert S. Trinkle, Plant City, for appel-lee, Board of County Commissioners, and Marvin Barkin, of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for ap-pellee, Sweetwater Utility Corporation.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See City of St. Petersburg v. Aikin, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 315; Smith v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 281 and City of Miami Beach v. Wiesen, Fla. 1956, 86 So.2d 442.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-78043, No 333-31209, No. 333-05255) on Forms S-8 and registration statement
(No. 333-88531) on Form S-3 of Artesian Resources Corporation of our report
dated March 30, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Artesian Resource Corporation as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004,
and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Artesian Resources Corporation.

                                                       /s/KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 30, 2005
OD~r,)~ri.~ r-¡

~ ~ '~J;; ;; H î\. ,il\

, '., " .j t,'. 'il ~. \,

.! '\UlA5.''¡'" """ .gf(:t~~'~,,~.."'''''~'''~~~;~r~~~~~

iY(~Y";¡JÎ/¿rf"'\"" '(~\

( i¡'~' 22 ....,,:c, \1

""d LUii;) ¡ ~ 5gd037 of ~.. / . (',-Í'-.-..- ., . ~)C'.Jr~C!p,~~-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUGES

In the Matter of

)

)

)

)

)

)

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Docket No. 9327

Respondent.

ORDER REQUIRING EXPEDITED BRIEFING

On Januar 16,2009, Respondent submitted a motion to amend the scheduling order.

Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(1), Respondent provided a certificate of conference indicating that

Respondent was unable to reach an agreement with Complaint Counsel on the issues raised by

Respondent's motion. Complaint Counsel's opposition, if any, to Respondent's motion shall be

fied by Januar 26, 2009.

ORDERED: -~ WI dJrt

D. Michael Chap~ 11

Administrative Law Judge

Date: Januar 22, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 61]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34181]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Open Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 13 & 14 January 1998.
    Time of Meeting: 0830-1630, 13 Jan 98. 0830-1300, 14 Jan 98.
    Place: CECOM HQ--Ft. Monmouth, NJ
    Agenda: The Army Science Board's (ASB) Issue Group Study on 
``Army Avionics Modernization Methodologies'' will meet for 
briefings and discussions on Army avionics modernization 
methodologies, Army avionics Science and Technology programs, and 
open systems architecture. These meetings will be open to the 
public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file 
statements with the committee at the time and in the manner 
permitted by the committee. For further information, please call our 
office at (703) 695-0781.
Wayne Joyner,
Program Support Specialist, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 97-34181 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### David C. TOWNSEND, Petitioner, v. NAPLES FRUIT & VEGETABLE COMPANY, etc., Respondent.

No. 43825.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 26, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 222.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
          EXTRACTED FROM LYNTON GROUP, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT
          FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
          IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
          STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>              OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                        1,296,173
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                 5,212,770
<ALLOWANCES>                     20,907
<INVENTORY>                   1,425,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             13,952,752
<PP&E>                       33,565,230
<DEPRECIATION>                5,861,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               54,079,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        14,587,318
<BONDS>                      28,881,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                      1,918,462
<OTHER-SE>                    3,266,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 54,079,497
<SALES>                      31,960,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             31,960,538
<CGS>                        24,474,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                29,505,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 77,259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            1,683,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 694,865
<INCOME-TAX>                     62,489
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             632,376 
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    632,376
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.08
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11
                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Three Months Ended       Nine Months Ended
                                       ---------------------   ---------------------
                                       June 28,    June 28,    June 28,    June 28,
                                         1997        1996        1997        1996
                                       ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------

<S>                                    <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Primary
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding    1,314,790   1,298,238   1,311,427   1,297,369
Dilutive Effect of Stock Options               -     267,687           -     178,563
                                       ---------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Common and
 Equivalent Shares Outstanding         1,314,790   1,565,925   1,311,427   1,475,932
                                       =============================================

Fully Diluted
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding    1,314,790   1,298,238   1,311,427   1,297,369
Dilutive Effect of Stock Options               -     278,271           -     229,725
                                       ---------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Common and
 Equivalent Shares Outstanding         1,314,790   1,576,509   1,311,427   1,527,094
                                       =============================================
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





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 Annual Report of DE Acquisition 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis Nguyen, certify, pursuant to 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.





/s/ Dennis Nguyen

Dennis Nguyen

Principal Financial Officer

June 6, 2011
#### WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Dorothy MOORE, joined by her husband, Theron Moore and Palm Beach Coca-Cola Bottling Company, a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-1057.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 12, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

_____________________

No. 15-1307 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

FERNANDO DÍAZ-RODRÍGUEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

__________________

Before Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

ORDER OF COURT Entered: March 17, 2017

The court's March 13, 2017 opinion is w ithdrawn, and an amended opinion is to issue this day.

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Hon. Francisco A. Besosa Frances Rios de Moran, Clerk, United States Di strict Court for the District of Puerto
Joshua Louis Solomon Fernando Diaz-Rodriguez
Brian Kenneth Kidd Timothy R. Henwood Myriam Yvette Fernandez-Gonzalez
Nelson Jose Perez-Sosa Tiffany Veronica Monrose