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

<ARTICLE>   5


<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                                     487,562
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               35,197
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           585,191
<PP&E>                                                     290,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                              91,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             891,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      141,226
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                    11,080
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 739,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               891,653
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             3,171
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           865,949
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           3,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (844,337)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (844,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (844,337)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.10)





</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 424 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 424

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of 
Congress should have the opportunity to offer an amendment striking an 
 employer mandate in any legislation to reform our health care system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 1994

   Mr. Tauzin (for himself and Mr. Hastert) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of 
Congress should have the opportunity to offer an amendment striking an 
 employer mandate in any legislation to reform our health care system.

Whereas small businesses are the engine of job creation in our economy--
        generating some 95 percent of all new jobs;
Whereas jobs should not be pitted against health care reform;
Whereas an employer mandate is a tax on jobs that must be paid regardless of a 
        firm's financial health;
Whereas extensive, complex, and costly reporting and recordkeeping would be 
        required under an employer mandate;
Whereas independent studies show that employer mandates would result in the loss 
        of between 850,000 and 3.8 million American jobs, causing millions of 
        Americans to be laid off or left without work;
Whereas another 23 million American workers would see reductions in their wages, 
        benefits, and/or hours worked, as a result of employer mandates, 
        according to independent studies;
Whereas small businesses and their employers are among those impacted most 
        severely by the shortcomings of our health insurance system;
Whereas the shortcomings in our health care system can be fixed without the 
        additional burden of an employer mandate;
Whereas access to affordable health care insurance for all Americans can be 
        achieved without an employer mandate;
Whereas a reasonable, affordable, comprehensive health care reform bill could be 
        enacted this year without an employer mandate; and
Whereas the insistance on requiring an employer mandate impedes a reasonable, 
        affordable, comprehensive health care reform bill from being enacted 
        this year: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
Members of Congress should have the opportunity to offer, debate, and 
vote on an amendment striking any employer mandate in any legislation 
to reform our health care system.

                                 <all>
```
No. 00-976.

#### Johnson, Director, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, et al. *v.*Associated General Contractors of Ohio, Inc., et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                              Verizon Florida Inc.

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Three Months Ended
(Dollars in Millions)                                             March 31, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                          <C>
Income before provision for income taxes                                   $ 102.4
Interest expense                                                              26.7
Portion of rent expense representing interest                                  5.4
Amortization of capitalized interest                                            .2
                                                             ---------------------

Earnings, as adjusted                                                      $ 134.7
                                                             =====================

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                                                           $  26.7
Portion of rent expense representing interest                                  5.4
Capitalized interest                                                            .3
                                                             ---------------------

Fixed Charges                                                              $  32.4
                                                             =====================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                            4.16
                                                             =====================
</TABLE>
#### Moses K. MURRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-221.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 20, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVER-FIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Black v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 279 So.2d 909.
Exhibit
10.104


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	$13,535.36	 	Issued:
    June 6, 2018


 


Whereas,
James C. Heckman (“Holder”) desires to lend and TheMaven, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”),
desires to borrow the principal sum of US$13,535.36 (“Principal Amount”) to provide working capital to Borrower.


 


Now,
therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Borrower hereby agrees to the
following:


 


1.
For value received, Borrower hereby promises to pay to Holder or its permitted assigns the Principal Amount, together with (i)
interest on the unpaid Principal Amount at a rate per annum equal to the applicable minimum federal rate on a non- compounding
basis calculated on the basis of a 365-day year, and (ii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in collecting
or enforcing payment hereof. Holder understands that this promissory note (“Note”) may only be assigned with
the written consent of Borrower, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.


 


2.
The entire unpaid Principal Amount and any accrued but unpaid interest shall be fully and immediately payable on demand by Holder
(“Maturity Date”). Borrower shall have the right, without premium, charge or penalty, to make payments of Principal
Amount at any time before the Maturity Date. Any and all prepayments shall be applied first to interest, then to the outstanding
Principal Amount. Any and all prepayments shall be accompanied by a notice in writing addressed to Holder identifying such payment
as a prepayment, and specifying the amount of Principal Amount being prepaid.


 


3.
Payments of principal of and interest on this Note are to be made in lawful money of the United States of America, in the form
of cash, certified check, wire transfer of same-day funds, or money order, as the Holder may designate in writing.


 


4.
Borrower and all endorsers, guarantors, sureties, accommodation parties hereof and all other parties liable or to become liable
for all or any part of this indebtedness, severally waive presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest, notice of protest,
and notice of nonpayment of this Note and expressly agree that this Note and any payment coming due under it may be extended or
otherwise modified from time to time without in any way affecting their liability hereunder.


 


5.
This Note and all issues hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Washington.


 


	 	THEMAVEN,
    INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Josh Jacobs
	 	Name:	Josh
    Jacobs
	 	Title:	President
Exhibit 10.3
 FORM OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR
AMENDED AND RESTATED RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
 Agreement Company  Participant  Original Agreement
 Code
  Plan Committee Board Award Date Units
  Vesting Date
  Dividend Equivalents




---



##### 



ab initio i.e. provided however
 provided however provided
     2




---



##### 



Change in Control
     3




---



##### 



Section 409A New Payment Date
  4




---



##### 



Securities Act
        5




---



##### 



Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
 6




---



##### 



AVATAR HOLDINGS INC.By:Name:Title: [Name of Director] 7
#### Hugh S. POTTS v. ESTATE of Robert E. MONTGOMERY, Sr., Deceased, and Gerald Harris, Admr., et al.

No. 46984.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 12, 1973.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Forrest W. Stringfellow, Jackson, for appellant.

Thornton, Mikell & Dorrill, Kosciusko, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Attala County; Marshall Perry, Judge.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and PATTERSON, INZER, ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ.

Affirmed.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BRIAN C. DANAHA,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2017-2309

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0841-17-0199-I-1.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

NORMAN JACKMAN, Jackman & Roth, LLP, Lincoln, 

NH, argued for petitioner.

 SARA B. REARDEN, Office of the General Counsel, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, argued 

for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE M.

SMITH. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 May 7, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, each of the undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 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 such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Golden West Financial Corporation.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                 |  | 
|November 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Herbert M. Sandler               
|Date             |  |  |  | Herbert M. Sandler                   
|                 |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and            
|                 |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|                 |  |  |  | Golden West Financial Corporation    
|                 |  | 
|November 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Marion O. Sandler                
|Date             |  |  |  | Marion O. Sandler                    
|                 |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and            
|                 |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|                 |  |  |  | Golden West Financial Corporation    
|                 |  | 
|November 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Russell W. Kettell               
|Date             |  |  |  | Russell W. Kettell                   
|                 |  |  |  | President and Chief Financial Officer
|                 |  |  |  | Golden West Financial Corporation
Exhibit 10.17

 

Spousal Consent

 

The undersigned, LI Jie, a People’s Republic of China (“China” or the “PRC”)  citizen with PRC Identification Card No.: [REDACTED], is the lawful spouse of SUN Changxun, a PRC citizen with PRC Identification Card No.: [REDACTED]. I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree to the execution of the following documents (as amended from time to time) (hereinafter referred to as the “Transaction Documents”) by SUN Changxun on 28 August, 2019, and the disposal of the equity interests of Beijing Ronglian Yitong Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Ronglian Yitong”) held by SUN Changxun and registered in his/her name according to the following documents:

 

(1)                                 The Share Pledge Agreement entered into between Anxun Guantong (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “WFOE”) and Ronglian Yitong;

 

(2)                                 The Exclusive Option Agreement entered into between the WFOE and Ronglian Yitong;

 

(3)                                 The Power of Attorney executed by SUN Changxun.

 

I hereby undertake not to make any assertions in connection with the equity interests  of Ronglian Yitong which are held by SUN Changxun. I hereby further confirm that SUN Changxun can perform the Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the Transaction Documents absent authorization or consent from me. I hereby confirm that such equity interests do not constitute communal property or inheritable property for myself as the spouse of SUN Changxun.

 

I hereby undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to ensure appropriate performance of the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time).

 











 

I hereby agree and undertake that if 1 obtain any equity interests of Ronglian Yitong  which are held by SUN Changxun for any reasons, 1 shall be bound by the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement entered into between the WFOE and Ronglian Yitong as of 28 February, 2018 (the “Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement”) (as amended from time to time) and comply with the obligations thereunder as a shareholder of Ronglian Yitong. For this purpose, upon the WFOE’s request, I shall sign a series of written documents in substantially the same format and content as the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement (as amended from time to time).

 

	
By:
    	
/s/ LI Jie
    	
 
    


 

Date: 28 August, 2019
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOSEPH KEENE MOORE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2443

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Wayne Durden, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES LEON ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-91- 295-MJG, CA-97-1383-MJG) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.James Leon Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Carmina Szunyog Hughes, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Anderson , Nos. CR-91-295-MJG; CA-97-1383- MJG (D. Md. May 15, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTIONS

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-17-00026-CV

Style: In re American Fisheries, Inc., Relator

Date motions filed*: February 28, 2017 and March 7, 2017

Type of motions: Real Parties in Interest’s Motion to Lift Stay or in the Alternative to 

Dismiss Appeal to Allow for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement; 

Relator’s Response to Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Lift Stay 

and First Motion to Stay or for Extension of Time

Parties filing motions: Real Parties in Interest National Honey, Inc., Jun Yang and Lin Yang;

Relator American Fisheries, Inc.

Document to be filed: Relator’s Supplemental Mandamus Record

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (original proceeding).

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: January 30, 2017

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Date: January 30, 2017

Date Requested: March 17, 2017 (46 days from original deadline)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: March 17, 2017.

 Denied (without prejudice)

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Relator’s alternative motion for extension of time to file the supplemental mandamus 

record because, among other things, it needs more time to attempt to finalize settlement,

is granted until March 17, 2017. Real parties in interest’s motion to lift stay or, in the

alternative, to dismiss to allow for enforcement of the settlement agreement, is denied 

without prejudice to refiling after the relator files the supplemental mandamus record.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_

  

Date: March 10, 2017_
FIFTH DIVISION

MCFADDEN, P. J.,

RAY and RICKMAN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

http://www.gaappeals.us/rules

October 24, 2018

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A18A1722. DARRELL T. PRICE v. GREGORY C. DOZIER,

COMMISSIONER.

PER CURIAM.

On March 27, 2018, this Court granted Darrell Price’s application for

discretionary appeal from the trial court’s order denying his petition for mandamus.

See Case No. A18D0355 (decided March 27, 2018). The order directed that the

appellant file a notice of appeal within 10 days of the date of the order. See OCGA

§ 5-6-35 (g). Price filed his notice of appeal on April 10, 2018, fourteen days after the

entry of the order.

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer

jurisdiction on this Court. White v. White, 188 Ga. App. 556, 556 (373 SE2d 824)

(1988). Because Price failed to file a notice of appeal within 10 days of our order
granting the discretionary application, the notice of appeal is untimely. Accordingly,

this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (1);

Barnes v. Justis, 223 Ga. App. 671, 671-672 (478 SE2d 402) (1996).

Appeal dismissed. Division Per Curiam. All Judges concur, McFadden, P. J.,

concurs fully and specially.

2
A18A1722. PRICE v. DOZIER.

MCFADDEN, Presiding Judge, concurring fully and specially.

I concur fully. I write separately to acknowledge the harsh and unfair result of

the settled law we must apply.

Appellant Price is incarcerated. He filed a pro se application for discretionary

review with this court. Most of the pro se inmate applications we see are without

merit, often patently so. But we granted Price’s application. That grant reflects our

initial determination that his arguments have at least arguable merit. See Court of

Appeals Rule 31 (b).

As required by the Appellate Practice Act, our order granting Price’s

application directed him to file his notice of appeal within ten days. See OCGA § 5-6-

35 (g).
Our order granting the application was issued on March 27, 2018. The copy of

our order attached to the notice of appeal is stamped “Received” at the Coffee

Correctional Facility on April 2, 2018. Price’s notice of appeal and attached

certificate of service are dated the next day, April 3, 2018. But the notice of appeal

was file-stamped by the Fulton County Superior Court on April 10, 2018. So it

appears from the record that although Price acted promptly after receiving our order,

his filing did not get to the superior court on time, meaning that we cannot exercise

jurisdiction over his appeal.

This is a recurring issue. It appears to arise, not from anyone’s neglect or

misconduct, but from ordinary delay in mail delivery to and from our correctional

facilities and from necessary security precautions.

2