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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,192
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,346
<PP&E>                                          15,127
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,663
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,361
<OTHER-SE>                                    (72,736)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,517
<SALES>                                         15,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,521
<CGS>                                            3,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,043)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,043)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)
        

</TABLE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00661-CR

SHANE POMPURA, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 179th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1486285 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant entered a guilty plea to theft. In accordance with the terms of a plea 

bargain agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and 

sentenced appellant to community supervision for two years. We dismiss the appeal. 

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in 

which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no 

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is 
2

included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Brown. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1727

_____________________________
H ERBERT L EE B UTLER ,
Petitioner
,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of C ertiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

.

February 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

M AKAR , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and auth orized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Herbert Lee Butler, pro se
, Petitioner

. Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Gayla Grant, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee
, fo r Respondent

.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.74 MB)

Tags:Loglines, November 2017

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60608

Summary Calendar

ARMANDO MONTES DE OCA-CASTILLO;

ELSA LUCERO-REYES,

Petitioners,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A74-590-845 & 846)

July 26, 1999

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Armando Montes de Oca-Castillo and E lsa Lucero-Reyes have filed a

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of exclusion.

Montes and Lucero contend that their due process rights were violated because the

immigration officer at the port of entry did not adequately apprise them of their

right to withdraw their applications for admission into the United St a tes, and the

immig r ation judge refused to allow them to withdraw their applications for

admission during the exclusion hearing. These issues, however, were not presented1 Ozdemir v. INS , 46 F.3d 6 (5 th Cir. 1994).

2 Green v. State Bar of Texas , 27 F.3d 1083 (5 th Cir. 1994).

3 Delgado-Carrera v. INS , 773 F.2d 629 (5 th Cir. 1985).

2 to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to decide

them. 1

Montes and Lucero also assert that the BIA violated their due process rights

by conducting a “cursory” or “summary” review of their appeal. This issue has not

been discussed in the body of appellant’s brief and therefore is deemed abandoned. 2

Finally, Montes and Lucero contend that exclusion proceedings were

inappropriate in their case, maintaining instead that they should have been placed

in deportation proceedings. This contention is unavailing; exclusion proceedings

were appropriate in this case. 3

The petition for review is DENIED.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 390/2006

of 6 March 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 March 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 March 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 6 March 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
#### EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF WYOMING, Appellant (Respondent), v. Ann M. SWARTZ, Appellee (Petitioner).

No. 87-60.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Aug. 6, 1987.

Joe Scott, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Employment Security Com’n of Wyoming, Casper, for appellant.

Van Graham, of Mason, Twichell & Graham, P.C., Pinedale, for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT, and MACY, JJ.

URBIGKIT, Justice.

The Employment Security Commission (ESC) affirmed a hearing examiner’s denial of unemployment benefits for Ann M. Swartz. On appeal, the district court ordered the ESC to pay Ms. Swartz’s attorney’s fees of $112.50 and costs of $.87.1 We will reverse.

It is well established that the courts may not assess attorney’s fees without express statutory or contractual authority. *Kvenild v. Taylor,*Wyo., 594 P.2d 972, 977 (1979); *DeWitt v. Balben,*Wyo., 718 P.2d 854, 863 (1986).

The ESC statutes provide no such authority:

> “A claimant shall not be assessed fees for proceedings under this act * * * by the commission or the court. The claimant may be represented by counsel * * * *402and the commission or the court shall approve fees for services of counsel * *. Any person violating this subsection shall be fined * * *, imprisoned * * *, or both.” Section 27-3-408(b), W.S.1977.

The intent of the legislature must be gleaned from the words of the statute whenever possible. *Wyoming Department of Revenue and Taxation-Excise Tax Division v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A. Kemmerer,*Wyo., 718 P.2d 31, 34 (1986). The plain language of the statute must be given effect. *Board of County Commissioners of Campbell County v. Ridenour,*Wyo., 623 P.2d 1174, 1184, reh. denied 627 P.2d 163 (1981); *Committee to Restore Mayor-Council Form of Government v. City of Rawlins,*Wyo., 692 P.2d 944, 946 (1984). The statute, intended to protect the claimant against unreasonable attorney’s fees, plainly provides that the court shall “approve” fees. To approve is not to order payment. Cf. § 27-12-604(c), W.S.1977 (1983 Replacement) (amended and reenacted as § 27-14-615, W.S.1977 (1987 Replacement). This court cannot read into the statute words which are not there. *Matter of Adoption of Voss,*Wyo., 550 P.2d 481, 485 (1976).

Absent some statutory authority, the courts cannot order the ESC to pay claimant’s attorney’s fees.

Reversed.

1

. The trial court also reversed the Commission, ordering that Swartz be afforded a hearing on her claim. Whether an appeal from that decision is properly before this court is at best problematic on this record. In any event, the question of the propriety of the district court’s ruling is now moot. While this appeal was pending, the department heard and granted Ms. Swartz’s claim for unemployment benefits. No further appeal has been taken, and thus the award of benefits is final. *Graham v. Wyoming Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission,*Wyo., 737 P.2d 1060 (1987).
Exhibit 32.1

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 Apple REIT Seven, Inc., (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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 as of September 30, 2010, and for the
period then ended.

|                                         | 
|---------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ GLADE M. KNIGHT                      | 
|                                         | 
|Glade M. Knight
 Chief Executive Officer | 
|                                         | 
|November 5,
 2010                        | 
|                                         | 
|/s/ BRYAN PEERY                          | 
|                                         | 
|Bryan Peery
 Chief Financial Officer     | 
|                                         | 
|November 5,
 2010                        | 

---
* Circuit Judge of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that th i s opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 00-30446

_______________________
MARIA DEL SOCORRO TELLEZ, a personal representative of Oscar Manuel Tellez Perez and as the natural tutrix of Hael Tellez Parra,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHIOS SEA SHIPPING & TRADING S A; HARBOR SHIPPING & TRADING CO S A; SUNRISE SHIPING CO INC,

in personam; CHIOS SEA MV, her engines, apparel and furniture, in rem,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana District Court Docket Number: 00-CV-67-F

_________________________________________________________________

January 12, 2001

Before KENNEDY * , JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: **

This case presents the novel question whether the nextof-kin of a deceased Nicaraguan seaman is bound by the foreign

forum selection clause contained in the seaman’s contract of1 Oral argument in this matter had been set for January 8, 2001. On

December 29, 2000 counsel or record for the appellant moved to withdraw from the

case. Because appellant was in the process of terminating or had terminated her relationship with her attorney in Miami, who in turn discharged counsel in this court, counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted. employment when bringing a wrongful dea th action against the

seaman’s empl o yer. The last-minute withdrawal of appellant’s

counsel precluded oral argument in the case. 1 However, having

considered appellant’s positi on in light of the briefs and

pertinent portions of the record we find no reversible error of

fact or law in the district court’s decision to enforce the forum

selection clause. This decision is limited to the facts as they

were developed before the district court, which are not dispositive

of any broader ruling on the central issue raised by this

litigation. On this limited basis, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

AFFIRMED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6887

GEORGE WINFRED WOODSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF CHARLESTON’S METRO DRUG UNIT (MDENT);

KANAWHA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND DRUG

ENFORCEMENT UNIT (DEU), And while acting in

their individual capacities Under Color of

Law; ART ASHLEY, Former Sheriff; LARRY DOTSON,

Captain (sic); BOONE; SPARKS; DEPUTY AKERS; R.

L. HARDIN, Deputy; BRIAN EUGENE JONES; MIKE

WALKER; JAMES A. KING, Metro Drug Agent; STEVE

NEDDO, Detective; SERGEANT NELSON, West Virginia State Police; KERRY MCCLANAHAN; TINA

LOUISE MCCLANAHAN HAMMONS, Confidential Informants,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-98-229-2)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 5, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

George Winfred Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

George W. Woodson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Woodson v. City of Charleston’s Metro Drug Unit, No. CA-98-229-2

(S.D.W. Va. June 4, 1998). We deny Woodson’s motions for appointment of counsel and extension of time to perfect his appeal. 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
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.45

                   WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF OHIO

                                December 30, 2004

Global Preferred Holdings, Inc.
6455 East Johns Creek Crossing
Suite 402
Duluth, GA 30097
Attention: Ed McKernan

         Re:      Extension and Tolling Agreement between Western Reserve Life
                  Assurance Co. of Ohio ("WRL") and Global Preferred Holdings,
                  Inc. ("GPHI") dated December 15, 2003 (the "Tolling
                  Agreement") and Agreement and Plan of Reorganization by and
                  among AEGON, N.V., GPRe Acquisition Corp. and GPHI dated of
                  even date herewith (the "Reorganization Agreement")

Dear Sirs:

         This letter will evidence the agreement of the undersigned that notice
of termination of the above-referenced Tolling Agreement may not be given before
the earlier of (a) the "Effective Time" (as defined in the Reorganization
Agreement) or (b) the date of termination of the Reorganization Agreement. Any
notice by either party purporting to terminate the Tolling Agreement which is
given before such date shall be void and of no effect. The parties acknowledge
that, by the terms of the Tolling Agreement, the "deadlines" (as such term is
defined therein) are extended and tolled until ninety (90) days following
receipt of such notice by the other party.

                                         Sincerely,

                                         WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE CO.
                                         OF OHIO



                                         By:  /s/ Arthur C. Schneider
                                            -----------------------------------
                                         Print Name:  Arthur C. Schneider
                                                    ------------------------
                                         Title:  Vice President
                                               -----------------------------

Agreed and accepted:
GLOBAL PREFERRED HOLDINGS, INC.



By:  /s/ Edward F. McKernan
   -----------------------------------
Print Name:  Edward F. McKernan
           ---------------------------
Title:  CEO
      --------------------------------
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 2, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1505

Lower Tribunal No. 17-24508

________________

Mary Fain,

Appellant,

vs.

Boris Luis Soca,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. 

Lopez, Judge.

Mary Fain, in proper person.

Fowler White Burnett, P.A., and Esther E. Galicia and Walter G. 

Latimer, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Derejtova, Inc. v. Ray Corp., 857 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2003) (holding trial court properly dismissed the underlying action with 

prejudice and enforced the parties’ settlement agreement where appellant 

failed to make a prima facie showing of duress); Griffith v. Griffith, 860 So. 

2d 1069, 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“The inquiry on a motion to set aside an 

agreement reached through mediation is limited to whether there was fraud, 

misrepresentation in discovery, or coercion”) (quoting Crupi v. Crupi, 784 So. 

2d 611, 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)). See also All Florida Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 

So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla.1956) (“A party to a written contract cannot defend 

against its enforcement on the ground that he signed it without reading it, 

unless he avers facts showing circumstances which prevented his reading 

the paper, or was induced by the statements of the other parties to desist 

from reading it. The courts will not ordinarily protect those who with full 

opportunity to do so will not protect themselves”) (quotation omitted); 

Santana v. Miller, 314 So. 3d 346, 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“It is wellestablished the failure to review and read a contract prior to its execution is 

not a defense against its application”); Moreno v. First Int'l Title, Inc., 176 So. 

3d 301, 302-03 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“[A] party who signs his name to an 

instrument cannot deny its contents on the ground that he signed it without 
3

reading it unless he shows facts indicating circumstances which prevented 

his reading it.”)
Environment Canada Meeting

2/2/15 Agenda Item: **12:45 EPA Presentation on Approach for Reducing Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions from the**  **Electricity Sector**

– 30 minute presentation, 30 minute Q&A session Attendees Mark Cauchi [NCR] Mark.Cauchi@ec.gc.ca **Executive Director, Oil, Gas and Alternative Energy** Helen Ryan[NCR] Helen.Ryan@ec.gc.ca **Director, Oil Gas and Energy Division** Kate Teeple [NCR] Katherine.Teeple@ec.gc.ca **Manager, GHG Integration Section** James Diamond [NCR] James.Diamond@ec.gc.ca **Head, Crude Oil Unit** Fred Beauregard [NCR] Frederic.BeauregardTellier@ec.gc.ca **Director, Air Emissions Priorities** Kimberly Curran Kimberly.curran@ec.gc.ca **Manager, Technical Group Electricity and**  **Combustion Division** Lynne Patenaude [NCR] Lynne.Patenaude@ec.gc.ca **Manager, Natural Gas & Crude Oil** Paola Mellow **Director, Electricity and Combustion Division**  Paola.Mellow@ec.gc.ca
Order filed March 21, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-01014-CV

____________

ROSALIE BRANDY HART, Appellant

V.

PAUL ROBERT HART, Appellee

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-30834

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due February 25, 2013. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits her brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why 

the brief was late, to the clerk of this court on or before April 22, 2013, the court 

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM