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

<ARTICLE>                                       5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 6,865,020
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            305,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        19,701,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                            15,753,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          19,701,828
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       7,140,477
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       1,581,823
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       173,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        5,384,898
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    5,384,898
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                           5,384,898
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0



</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JW/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HTIN LIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-73547

Agency No. A079-594-596

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Htin Lin, a native and citizen of Myanmar, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying

his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under

FILED

DEC 02 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JW/Research 2 05-73547

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility findings,

Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition

for review.

The agency found Lin not credible in part because of an inconsistency

regarding his membership in the All Burma Student Democratic Front. Because

this inconsistency goes to the heart of Lin’s claim, and the agency reasonably

rejected Lin’s proffered explanation for the inconsistency, substantial evidence

supports the adverse credibility determination. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250,

1259 (9th Cir. 2003) (“So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by

substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [petitioner’s] claim of persecution, we

are bound to accept the [agency’s ] adverse credibility finding.”). Accordingly, in

the absence of credible testimony, Lin failed to establish eligibility for asylum and

withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.

2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       9,671,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,118,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,872,000
<PP&E>                                       2,271,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,920,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,277,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,783,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   117,731,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (107,237,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,277,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,107,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,975,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*OMAR J. MILLER

(AC 20162)

Foti, Mihalakos and Pellegrino, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 5

officially released June 27, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
1

**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA**  **20 -**  **0 597**  ) JUSTIN LEE ROMERO , )

P etitioner and Appell ant , ) vs. ) ) STATE OF MONTANA , )

Respondent and Appell ee . ) ) **ORDER DISMISS**  **ING APPEAL**  **ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COUR** **T THIRTEENTH**  **JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,**  **YELLOWSTONE COUNTY** 

**Honorable Donald**  **L. Harris , Presiding** 

_____________________________________________________________ WHEREAS , the Appellant has mo ve d this Court to dismiss the above
referenced mater and good cause appearing therefrom; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this matter is DISMISSED. 02/01/2021

Case Number: DA 20-05972 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Brief by el ectronic delivery via the ECF filing system
. Tim fo x , E SQ Attorney General P. O. Box 201401 He le na, MT 59620
- 1401 Attorne y fo r Appellee GINA DAHL Billings C ity Attorney’s Office 210 N 27 th Street Billings, MT 59101
DATED this 1 February 2021 /s/ Martin W. Judnich

___ ________ Martin W. Judnich , Esq.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 1 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50,003
<OTHER-SE>                                     (50,003)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,591)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,591)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,591)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### AMAZON KNITTING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8279.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 1939.

Kixmiller, Baar & Morris, of Chicago, Ill., for the petitioner.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ARANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal herein be and the same is dismissed pursuant to stipulation of the parties heretofore filed.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Relief Portrait Plaques of Lawgivers
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Various

Materials
    Marble

Year
    1950

Location
      
House Chamber

The 23 marble relief portraits over the gallery doors of the House Chamber in the U.S. Capitol depict historical figures noted for their work in establishing the principles that underlie American law. They were installed when the chamber was remodeled in 1949-1950. Created in bas relief of white Vermont marble by seven different sculptors, the plaques each measure 28 inches in diameter.

Image
    Map of portraits in the House Chamber.

Map of portraits in the House Chamber.The 11 profiles in the eastern half of the chamber face left and the 11 in the western half face right, so that all look towards the full-face relief of Moses in the center of the north wall.

The subjects of the reliefs were chosen by scholars from the University of Pennsylvania and the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D.C., in consultation with authoritative staff members of the Library of Congress. The selection was approved by a special committee of five Members of the House of Representatives and the Architect of the Capitol.

The plaster models for these reliefs are on display on the walls in the Rayburn House Office Building subway terminal.

**Select a specific lawgiver from the list below:**

Alfonso X
	Edward I
	Gaius
	George Mason
	Gregory IX
	Hammurabi
	Hugo Grotius
	Innocent III
	Jean Baptiste Colbert
	Justinian I
	Lycurgus
	Maimonides
	Moses
	Napoleon I
	Papinian
	Robert Joseph Pothier
	Saint Louis
	Simon de Montfort
	Solon
	Suleiman
	Thomas Jefferson
	Tribonian
	Sir William Blackstone Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,337,820
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  592,297
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,930,534
<PP&E>                                      25,447,873
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,171,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,206,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          438,843
<BONDS>                                      3,915,823
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,851,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,206,513
<SALES>                                      1,348,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,390,978
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,119,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                226,544
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            226,544
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   226,544
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Saavedra v. Cheng

15971

9/20/96

Affirmed
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TRACEY MACKEY ,

Appellant ,

v. Case No. 5D 18

- 1324

STATE OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 24, 2018 3.850 Appeal from th e Circuit Court for Lake County , Lawrence J. Semento , Judge. Tracey Mackey, Crawfordville, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent

- Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. This is Tracey Mackey’s third postconviction relief appeal to this court. In Mackey v. State , 219 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this court reversed the summary denial of Mackey’s postconviction motion and instructed the lower court to afford Mackey th e opportunity to amend. In Mackey v. State , 236 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), this court affirmed the denial, after amendment, of Mackey’s motion on all2

grounds except Ground Two, which alleged that Mackey’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a particular witness who would have afforded testimony su pporting his

defense at trial. This c ourt ruled that Grou nd Two was “facially sufficient ” and instructed the lower court to either hold an evidentiary hearing on that claim or attach records conclusively refuting it. Id

. at 505. On remand, the lower court denied Ground Two, finding that th e record conclusively showed that : (1) Mackey and his counsel noted on the record at trial that the witness had proved difficult to find because she changed her phone number and refused to testify; and (2) Mackey could not show prejudice even if his alleg ations were true because there was “overwhelming evidence” of Mackey’s guilt. We respectfully disagree with the trial court. First, the records attached to the trial court’s order do not refute Mackey’s claim that counsel misrepresented to him the availa bility of the witness

. Second, the alleged anticipated testimony of the uncalled witness, if found credible, would undermine the identification testimony of the two alleged victims, as well as provide a non

- incriminating reason why a scrap of cloth with M ackey’s DNA was found at the scene of the alleged crime. The trial court is directed, on remand, to attach additional records conclusively refuting Mackey’s claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing. REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions.

EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS , JJ., concur.
# C_2016202EN.01016601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/166 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/166

---

Article 277

(ex Article 241 TEC)

(ex Article 241 TEC)

Notwithstanding the expiry of the period laid down in Article 263, sixth paragraph, any party may, in proceedings in which an act of general application adopted by an institution, body, office or agency of the Union is at issue, plead the grounds specified in Article 263, second paragraph, in order to invoke before the Court of Justice of the European Union the inapplicability of that act.

---
January 25, 2001

Mr. Ralph Levine
930 Park Avenue
Apartment 7-N
New York, New York  10028

Dear Ralph:

         Reference is made to the Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of
June 4, 1998 and amended on January 27, 2000, between Carter-Wallace, Inc. (the
"Company") and you (the "Agreement"). The Board of Directors of the Company has
determined that it is appropriate to amend the Agreement to reflect your
election to the office of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and
the change in your compensation as a result thereof.

         Accordingly, upon confirmation by you of your agreement thereto, the
Agreement shall be amended in the following respects:

                  (1)    The first sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement shall
         be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                         The Executive shall be paid a base salary at the rate
                  of not less than $1,350,000 per year during the Term, payable
                  in equal semi-monthly installments.

                  (2)    The first paragraph of Section 4 of the Agreement shall
         be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                         During the Term, the Executive shall have the title
                  of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, shall
                  report directly to the Board of Directors of the Company and
                  shall have the powers, status and duties that are normally
                  exercised in and ordinarily pertain to these positions.


<PAGE>


Mr. Ralph Levine                          -2-                  January 25, 2001



         Upon your confirmation of your agreement with the amendments set forth
above, by signing and returning to the Secretary of the Company the copy of this
letter, such amendments shall take effect immediately.

                                               Very truly yours,
                                               CARTER-WALLACE, INC.



                                               ------------------------------
                                               President


Confirmed and agreed this
      day of January, 2001


----------------------------------
Ralph Levine
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<CIK>  0000081027
<NAME>  PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
<SUBSIDIARY>
<NUMBER> 004
<NAME>  PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                     PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       1,345,450
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        18,644
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                            123,375
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                            4,520
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     51,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,543,871
<COMMON>                                          157,230
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         180,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               142,018
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                    479,248
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                         5,286
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                              419,516
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 79,169
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                          20,000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      20,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                               0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                             0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                        0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                    520,652
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   1,543,871
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         749,390
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               34,184
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        615,396
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        649,580
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            99,810
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                    946
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    100,756
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           38,151
<NET-INCOME>                                       62,605
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           213
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      62,392
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           65,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          24,098
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                            112,592
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


</TABLE>