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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         129,402                 658,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,002                 168,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               301,482                 975,524
<PP&E>                                          60,315                 839,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 441,792               1,814,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          802,970                  74,633
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          1                       0
<COMMON>                                       (61,181)              1,739,906
<OTHER-SE>                                     441,798               1,314,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                        532,677                 437,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               544,140                 409,646
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,453,855               2,577,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                31,739                 264,222
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,699                   5,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,946,153)             (2,158,137)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                      749,433                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,695,586)             (2,153,137)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.30)                  (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1973 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on suspension system stabilizer 

bars. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on suspension 

system stabilizer bars. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION SYSTEM STABILIZER BARS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subheading 9902.25.77 of the 

5 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating 

6 to suspension system stabilizer bars) is amended— 

7 (1) in the effective period column, by striking 

8 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2012’’; and 

9 (2) by striking the article description and in10 serting the following: ‘‘Suspension system stabilizer 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1973 IS

1 bars of alloy steel, each weighing approximately 42 

2 kg, the forgoing comprising one horizontal rod 98.8 

3 cm in length at each end of which is welded at ap4 proximately right angles of a rod measuring approxi5 mately 51 cm in length, designed for use in Class 7 

6 and 8 trucks only, certified by the importer as of 

7 Japan grade SCM 525S (26CrMo4) or SCM435H 

8 (34CrMo4) steel (provided for in subheading 

9 8708.80.65)’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply with respects to goods entered, or 

12 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

13 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6521
HERMAN DALE CATLETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER, Respondent - Appellee, andATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; WARDEN, MOUNT OLIVE; MOUNT OLIVE RECORDS DEPARTMENT, Parties in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-99-111-3) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Herman Dale Catlett, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICEOF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Herman Dale Catlett appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Catlett v. Painter , No. CA-99-111-3 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 20, 2001); see Duncan v. Walker , 121 S.Ct. 2120 (2001). We deny Catlett’s motion to appoint counsel and 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
Exhibit 23 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-44253, 333-18127, 333-01554, 333-01552, 333-110943, 033-97592, and 333-137193 of Midwest Air Group, Inc. on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-91246, 333-110639, 333-110900, and 333-111016 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 26, 2007, relating to the financial statements (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to Midwest Air Group, Inc.s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans), of Midwest Air Group, Inc., and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Midwest Air Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.   /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP Milwaukee, Wisconsin February 26, 2007
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Robert Gelfand, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wallace Mountain
     Resources Corp.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of February, 2006.


/s/ Robert Gelfand
----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Yogurt Culture, Inc. and Michelle Anderssen v. Shannon A. Lang, 

PLLC

Appellate case number: 01-19-00414-CV

Trial court case number: 1103656

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

Michelle Anderssen has filed in this Court a document entitled “Statement of Inability to 

Afford Court Costs.” Although this document appears to contain much of the information required

to be included in the approved form, it is not in compliance with Rules 145 and 20.1. See TEX. R.

CIV. P. 145(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a).

Fees charged for preparation of the appellate record are governed by Rule 145. See TEX.

R. CIV. P. 145(a). This rule requires the filing of a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of 

Court Costs (form attached to this order). See id. (party who files Statement of Inability cannot be 

required to pay costs except by order of the trial court). The filing of this same form is required if 

appellant is unable to afford the appellate filing fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a),(b) (party who 

filed statement of inability in trial court is not required to pay appellate court costs unless trial 

court overruled that party’s claim of indigence in an order under Rule 145).

Accordingly, Anderssen shall file in the trial court, within 30 days of the date of this 

order, the Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in the attached form prescribed 

by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. R. APP. P. 145. Anderssen shall advise this Court when 

she has complied with this order.

 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____Justice Peter Kelly______________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __July 2, 2019___
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELLY ANN CHAKOV MCDOUGALL, 

an individual and as trustee; JULIANA 

GARCIA, an individual; SECOND 

AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; 

CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS 

FOUNDATION; FIREARMS POLICY 

COALITION, INC., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF VENTURA; BILL AYUB; 

WILLIAM T. FOLEY; ROBERT LEVIN; 

VENTURA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH 

CARE AGENCY, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-56220 

D.C. No. 

2:20-cv-02927-CBM-AS 

Central District of California, 

Los Angeles 

ORDER

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, 

NGUYEN, HURWITZ, FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, MILLER, SANCHEZ and H. 

THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

The district court’s judgment is vacated, and this case is remanded to the 

district court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____ 

(2022).

The parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. This 

FILED

JUN 29 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

order constitutes the mandate of this court. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Aponte, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on October 8, 1985, convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the first degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 30967 Summary Calendar

FELIX IGNACIO LAMBERTI LEDEZMA ,
Petitioner

- Appellant

v.
JOSEPH P. YOUNG , Responde nt

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12

- CV

- 2935

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In March 2009, Felix Ignacio Lamberti Ledezma, federal prisoner
# 81449

- 004, was convicted by guilty plea in the Southern District of Florida of two counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a) & 70506. He appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his counts of

* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 21, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-30967 Document: 00512602412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2014No. 13

- 30967

conviction. We review the dismissal de novo. Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). As the district court determined, because Lamberti Ledezma seeks to challenge the validity of his conviction, rather than the manner in which his sentence has been executed, his petition pr operly arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See P ack , 218 F.3d at 451

- 52. Lamberti Ledezma may not use § 2241 as a vehicle to challenge his conviction because he has not shown that § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Reyes

Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). A § 2255 motion
must be filed by the movant in the court that convicted him. § 2255(a); Ojo v.
INS , 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the district court did not enter the judgment of conviction, it did not e rr in dismissing the petition rather than construing it as a § 2255 motion. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-30967 Document: 00512602412 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2014
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1911 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixture used in ceramic 

arc tubes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixture 

used in ceramic arc tubes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURE USED IN CERAMIC ARC TUBES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.71 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 mixture used in ceramic arc tubes) is amended by striking 

7 the date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/ 

8 31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1911 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, New York corporation, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Hector MARTINEZ and Manuel Rivera, Defendants and Appellants, v. GREAT EQUITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CHICAGO, et al., Third-party Defendants and Respondents.

No. 19554.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 12, 1985.

Mark S. Miner, William J. Hansen, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Jay V. Barney, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Defendants appeal from multiple orders and judgments of the district court. After careful consideration of the record before us, we conclude that the appeal is not taken from any final order that disposes of all the issues as to all the parties. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. *Pate v. Marathon Steel Co.,*Utah, 692 P.2d 765 (1984).

This case was previously before this Court in *General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Martinez,*Utah, 668 P.2d 498 (1983). Plaintiff (GMAC) originally sued defendants for nonpayment of an automobile financing loan. Defendant Martinez brought a third-party complaint against Great Equity Life Insurance Company to enforce a credit insurance policy written to insure the automobile loan in the event of disability. The trial court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of GMAC and against Martinez. No appeal was taken from that judgment. After trial on the third-party claim, the trial court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict against Martinez and in favor of Great Equity Insurance Company. That judgment was appealed to this Court, and we held that Great Equity was estopped from denying Martinez coverage under the policy. We reversed the third-party judgment against Martinez and remanded “for entry of judgment against Great Equity and in favor of [defendants].” *Id.*at 502.

Defendant Martinez now appeals a subsequent interlocutory ruling by the trial court as to the validity of the judgment *244between GMAC and defendant and an award of additional attorney fees to GMAC. This order was not certified for appeal under Rule 54(b), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. No judgment has yet been entered on the third-party claims in compliance with our mandate. No determination has been made as to the amount of the judgment to be entered, including attorney fees, if appropriate. Until these and any other pending matters are resolved by the court below, there has not been a final disposition of all the respective liabilities and rights of the parties. We see no reason to address in piecemeal fashion the issues ruled on below. *Burton v. Barker,*Utah, 696 P.2d 1217 (1985).

A party may only appeal as of right from a final order which disposes of all claims and parties or from an order properly certified under Rule 54(b) which wholly disposes of a interlocutory review. Until a final order is entered or a Rule 54(b) certification by the trial court is obtained, defendants have not appealed from a final, appeal-able order. *Pate v. Marathon Steel Co., supra.*

Defendants’ appeal is dismissed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment as set forth in our prior decision.
exv10w3



 





EXHIBIT 10.3




AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO LEASE AGREEMENT




           THIS AMENDMENT is made on this 3rd day of January, 2007, by and between KINSLEY EQUITIES II
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“Landlord”) and PROFESSIONAL VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LTD. (“Tenant”).



W I T N E S S E T H:




           WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain lease agreement (the “Lease Agreement”)
dated March 15, 2002 and amended by Amendment No.1 dated January 22, 2003 and Amendment No.2 dated
October 16, 2003, whereby Tenant leases approximately 87,500 square feet of space (the “Premises”)
designated as Berkshire Business Park, located at 3640 Sandhurst Drive, York, PA, and



           WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4 of the Lease Agreement, Tenant wishes to extend the Lease Term
for a period of three (3) years beginning August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2010 (the Renewal Term”).



          NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant wish to amend the terms of the Lease and agree as follows:




	1)	 	The Lease Term is hereby extended for a period of three (3) years through July 31,
2010.
	 
	2)	 	The Base Rent for the Renewal Term shall be as follows:






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Period	 	Monthly	 	Annually	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	August 1, 2007 — July 31, 2008
	 	$29,895.83
	 	$358,749.96
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	August 1, 2008 — July 31, 2010
	 	$30,989.58
	 	$371,874.96	 	 






	 	 	Such Base Rent shall be payable, in advance, in equal monthly installments during the term
hereof.
	 
	3)	 	All other terms, covenants and conditions of the Lease, except as amended or modified
herein shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunder set their hands and seals the day and year
first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	LANDLORD:
	ATTEST/WITNESS:	 	KINSLEY EQUITIES II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
	 	 	By: KIN, LLC, Managing Partner
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ D.
Gregg Doshna
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Robert A. Kinsley	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Robert A. Kinsley, Managing Member	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TENANT:
	ATTEST/WITNESS:	 	PROFESSIONAL VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LTD.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Dr. Lionel L. Reilly
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Neal B. Soderquist	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Neal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer