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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,224
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,183
<PP&E>                                         193,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,676
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       143,285
<OTHER-SE>                                     (44,577)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,147
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,886
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,608)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,608)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.35)
        

</TABLE>
#### Mary A. SIMPKINS, Appellant, v. Hilda E. RIGSBY et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1096.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 27, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Roger F. Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3281 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3281

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel TOO MUCH FUN.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 13, 1993

  Ms. Byrne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel TOO MUCH FUN.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel 
TOO MUCH FUN (United States official number 936565).

                                 <all>
```
# C_2012231EN.01000301.xml

| 2.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2012/C 231/03

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Finland

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Finland

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Finland

Subject of commemoration: the 150th anniversary of the birth of the artist Helene SCHJERFBECK

Description of the design: The design shows a stylised self portrait of the artist with the text Helene SCHJERFBECK on the left and the yearmarks 1862-1946 on the right. Left on the lower side of the coin are the yearmark 2012 and the country's reference FI.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued: 2 million

Date of issue: September 2012

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3154

To require official inspection and testing of all grain imported into the

United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1993

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (for himself, and Mr. POMEROY) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To require official inspection and testing of all grain

imported into the United States.

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

3 Section 5 of the United States Grain Standards Act

4 (7 U.S.C. 77) is amended by adding at the end the follow5 ing new subsection:

6 ‘‘(d) INSPECTION OF IMPORTED GRAIN.—The Ad7 ministrator shall require that all grain imported into the

8 United States be accompanied by a valid certification of

9 the grade designation and level of vomitoxin of the grain.

10 The Administrator may, upon request, perform weighing
2

HR 3154 IH

1 or inspection on a fee basis of any such grain that is not

2 accompanied by such certification prior to the transfer of

3 the grain into an elevator, warehouse, or other storage fa4 cility in the United States.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3187 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3187

To amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to increase 
authorization for appropriation to compensate Aleut villages for church 
       property lost, damaged, or destroyed during World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 1993

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to increase 
authorization for appropriation to compensate Aleut villages for church 
       property lost, damaged, or destroyed during World War II.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Subsection (d) of section 205 of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands 
Restitution Act (Public Law 100-383) is amended by striking 
``$1,400,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$4,700,000''.

                                 <all>
```
#### William Parris MAYS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 23, 1973.

*638Richard H. Brown, Sp. Appointed Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Thomas M. Carney, Nelson E. Bailey and Stephen Koons, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

CROSS, Judge.

The appellant, William Parris Mays, filed in the trial court a motion under Rule 3.850 F.R.Cr.P. 33 F.S.A. to vacate judgment and sentence imposed for the crime of manslaughter of which he had been convicted. The motion, in substance, set forth that appellant’s right to an orderly appellate review by direct appeal from the judgment and sentence had been frustrated by his court-appointed attorney’s failure to perfect an appeal. The trial court, after an evidentiary hearing, denied the motion. This appeal then followed.

 It is appellant’s contention on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion. Rule 3.850 F.R.Cr.P. 33 F.S. A. was intended to provide a procedure for disposing of post-conviction claims relating to matters which occurred at trial and which affected the constitutional validity of the conviction. Frustration of appeal does not occur during trial and does not affect the validity of a conviction. Thus, Rule 3.850 F.R.Cr.P. 33 F.S.A. is not a procedural vehicle through which a belated appellate review of a judgment and sentence can be obtained.

Where a direct appeal has allegedly been frustrated by state action, the appropriate remedy is to apply for delayed appellate review by petition for writ of ha-beas corpus, directed to the appellate court within the district in which the appellant was convicted. Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967). Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed without prejudice to the right of appellant to seek delayed appellate review by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus addressed to this court as authorized under Hollings-head v. Wainwright, supra.

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and McDONALD, PAR- ' KER LEE, Associate Judge, concur.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Survey of Business Owners – Released June 14, 2011

Construction

12.3%

Wholesale 

3.8%

Real estate 

l

Finance and insurance

3.9%

Professional, scientific, and 

technical services

12.9%

Administrative and support 

and waste management and 

remediation services

6.0%

Health care and social 

assistance

4.9%

Accommodation and food 

services

4.2%

Repair and maintenance, and 

personal and laundry services

9.1%

All other industries

15.6%

Family-Owned Firms by Industry: 2007

Total family-owned respondent firms: 3,870,090

Percent of respondent firms by industry
#### William Shelby GRAVES, Appellant, v. Willie C. WRIGHT, Appellee.

No. Q-375.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
1

Filed 1/5/21 P. v. Bennett CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARRIN DW AY NE BENNETT

,

Defendant and Appellant. E0 7 5071

(Super.Ct.No. FSB702182 )

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County

. C o lin J. Bilash,

Judge. Affirmed.

Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Christopher P.

Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2009, after initially being charged with murder, plaintiff and appellant Darrin

Dw ay ne Bennett pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted a gun2

enhancement. In 2019, he sought resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95

(section 1170.95) , a statu t e recently enacted by Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437).

The trial court denied Bennett’s petition, finding that he was not eligible for relief

because he was not convicted of murder. We affirm.

Senate Bill 1437 “amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable

consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not

imposed on a person who is not the actual kill er, did not act with the intent to kill, or was

not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to

human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) Section 1170.95 “provides a

procedure by which those convicted of murder can seek retroactive relief if the changes

in the law would affect their previously sustained convictions.” ( People v. Larios (2019)

42 Cal.App.5th 956, 964.)

Bennett argues here that section 1170.95 should be interpreted to apply not only to

t hose convicted of murder, but those like him, who were charged with murder but

accepted a plea offer to a lesser included offense. Such claims have been rejected by a

number of appellate courts , including this one . (See People v. Sanchez (2020) 48

Cal.Ap p.5th 914, 916 ( Sanchez ) [rejecting contention that section 1170.95 applies to

defendant who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter after being charged with murder,

and collecting cases] .)3

Bennett properly acknowledges this line of authority, contending only that it was

wrongly decided and asking that we reach a different conclusion. We are not persuaded,

and instead adopt the thoughtful analysis expressed by our colleagues in Sanchez

.

DISP OSITION

We affirm the order denying Bennett’s section 1170.95 petition.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAPHAEL

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

SLOUGH

J.
Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 1 

SCALIA, J., concurring 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to 

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order 

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FIDELITY FEDERAL BANK & TRUST v.

JAMES KEHOE 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED 

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH 

CIRCUIT 

No. 05–919. Decided March 27, 2006 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari. 

This case presents an important question of statutory 

construction—whether “actual damages” must be shown 

before a plaintiff may recover under the Driver’s Privacy 

Protection Act, 18 U. S. C. §2724(b)(1). The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sold to 

petitioner, for a penny a piece, the names and addresses of 

565,600 individuals in three counties who registered cars

with the DMV—the total cost was thus $5,656. Petitioner 

intended to mail these individuals a solicitation to refinance their automobile loans. However, because Florida— 

alone among the States—had not immediately amended 

its law to comply with the Act, none of these people had 

given their “express consent” to the release of this information, as the Act requires. §2721(b)(12). Petitioner now 

faces a possible $1.4 billion judgment—$2,500 per violation. Because of other class actions currently pending in 

Florida, involving the same question, the total amount at 

stake may reach $40 billion. This enormous potential

liability, which turns on a question of federal statutory 

interpretation, is a strong factor in deciding whether to 
2 FIDELITY FEDERAL BANK & TRUST v. KEHOE 

SCALIA, J., concurring 

grant certiorari. See, e.g., R. Stern, E. Gressman, S. 

Shapiro, & K. Geller, Supreme Court Practice 248 (8th ed. 

2002).

Nonetheless, I concur in the denial of certiorari. A 

second and equally important legal question is bound up 

in this case—namely, whether petitioner can be held liable 

under the Act if it did not know that the State had failed 

to comply with the Act’s “express consent” requirement. 

The District Court did not reach this issue since it 

awarded summary judgment to petitioner on the actual 

damages question. The scienter question remains open in 

light of the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment reversing and 

remanding the case. See 421 F. 3d 1209 (2005). Depending on the course of proceedings below, it may later be

appropriate for us to consider granting certiorari as to 

either or both issues. But because I agree that our consideration of the case would be premature now, I concur in 

the denial of certiorari.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 6, 2019

No. 04-19-00044-CV

TITLE SOURCE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

HOUSECANARY, INC., formerly known as Canary Analytics, Inc.,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI06300

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After considering appellant’s opposed motion for leave to file a supplemental appellant’s 

brief and appellee’s response in opposition, the court GRANTS appellant’s motion and accepts 

the supplemental brief filed on July 23, 2019. Appellant is advised that it must still comply with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2)(B) in that the aggregate of all of appellant’s briefs in 

this appeal may not exceed 27,000 words.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Karl Richard WOLFE v. STATE.

No. 36833.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 202 So.2d 133.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Paul J.B, Murphy, III, as ChiefExecutive Officer of Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: November 6, 2008 | By: /s/ PAUL J. B. MURPHY, III |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                         | Paul J. B. Murphy, III         |
|                         | Chief Executive Officer             |

 

----
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

                              DAY RUNNER, INC. SUBSIDARIES




           SUBSIDIARIES                                 JURISDICTION


DRI International Holdings, Inc.                          Delaware
DR UK Holdings Limited                                 United Kingdom
Day Runner UK plc                                      United Kingdom
Filofax Group Limited                                  United Kingdom
Filofax Limited                                        United Kingdom
Filofax France s.a.r.l.                                    France
Filofax GmbH                                               Germany
Filofax A/s                                                Denmark
Filofax AB                                                 Sweden
Filofax, Inc.                                            Connecticut
Day Runner Canada Inc.                                     Canada
256 La. 887

#### Adolph HEBERT v. DUGAS and LeBLANC and Houston Fire and Casualty Co.

No. 50857.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1970.

In re: Adolph Hebert applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Assumption. 238 So.2d 216.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
#### Charles PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-312.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 1, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.