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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          41,556
<SECURITIES>                                    51,283
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,754
<PP&E>                                          16,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,013
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,475
<SALES>                                        142,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,370
<CGS>                                           74,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,099
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (2,526)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,282
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,268
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,014
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,014
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON uncz —-cz STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) DIVISION ONE LJ -. Respondent, ) No. 73762-7-1 IS c/j' r".r
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION sr ZC """ MICHAEL MARKNSEN, Appellant. i FILED: December 19, 2016 Dwyer, J. —As the parties predicted, the Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Case, No. 92293-4 (Wash. Dec. 8, 2016), 

### http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/922934.pdf, is dispositive oftheclaim of 

### error raised in this appeal. The Case decision mandates affirmance ofthe trial court's judgment. We so order. 

### The sole remaining question regards costs on appeal. This question was 

### fully briefed bythe parties (itwas raised in the briefofappellant, addressed in the briefofrespondent, and discussed in appellant's reply brief) and we granted oral 

### argument on the issue. Afterfull consideration ofthe question, "we now choose toexercise ourdiscretion anddirect the clerk ofthecourt not to award appellate 

### costs even though the State has substantially prevailed." In re Pers. Restraint of Flippo, No. 92616-6 (Wash. Dec. 8, 2016), at 8, http://www.courts.wa.aov/opinions/pdf/926166.pdf.No. 73762-7-1/2

Affirmed.

We corfcur: i 

# ^r/ Skii^a&^jy^
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement No.
333-65454 of PDVSA Finance Ltd. and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. on Form F-3, of
our report dated February 14, 2003, which expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph describing the accounting for the merger of
VPHI Midwest, Inc., appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CITGO
Petroleum Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 21, 2003
#### UNIVERSAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-1559.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

July 29, 1993.

Before CUDAHY, ROVNER and ESCHBACH, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

On consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by the appellant, the panel has decided to rehear the appeal. The opinion issued on June 4, 1993 is vacated and the appeal taken under advisement.
#### The Columbia Insurance Co. *versus*John Buckley & Co.

[This case was argued upon the same day, and by the same counsel as in the preceding one. The facts, also, were substantially the same.]

Mr. Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, May 7th 1877.

Both assignments present one question only: that is, the effect to be given to the non-payment, within thirty days after notice, of an assessment on the premium-note of the insured. The court below thought the omission to pay made the policy absolutely void, and that no valid assessment on the note could be made to pay losses thereafter sustained. The evidence of such assessments was therefore rejected.

In an opinion just filed, in another case between these same parties, in regard to another assessment on this identical note, we have fully discussed the question which arises here. The reasons there given rule this case. It is unnecessary to repeat them. They show that the learned judge erred in rejecting the evidence, and that this judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and a *venire facias de novo*awarded.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 9, 2014

NO. 03-12-00527-CV

Appellants, Texas Entertainment Association, Inc. and Karpod, Inc.,//

Cross-Appellants, Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

v.

Appellees, Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and 

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas//

Cross-Appellees, Texas Entertainment Association, Inc. and Karpod, Inc.

APPEAL FROM 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART –

OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on July 9, 2012. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was error in the trial court’s 

judgment. The Court reverses the portions of the trial court’s judgment holding that a sexuallyoriented-business tax is an occupation tax and that twenty-five percent (25%) of the revenue 

from a sexually-oriented-business tax is required to go to public schooling, and renders judgment

that the sexually-oriented-business tax is not an occupation tax and thus there is no requirement 

that twenty-five percent (25%) of its revenue go to public schooling. The remainder of the trial 

court’s judgment is affirmed. Appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this 

Court and the court below.
**EXHIBIT
      10.1**





**ADDENDUM
      TO PROMISSORY NOTE**





THIS
      ADDENDUM TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this " Addendum") is dated November 18, 2005,
      between MICROHELIX, INC., an Oregon corporation (the "Borrower"), and MARTI
      D.
      LUNDY (the "Lender").




A.  Borrower
      made a Promissory Note dated April 8, 2005 (the "Note") in favor of the Lender
      in the principal amount of $1,250,000.00; and




B.  The
      parties desire to amend the Note pursuant to the terms of this
      Addendum.




For
      good
      and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
      acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:




1.  Continuing
      Effectiveness .
      Except
      as modified herein, all of the terms, conditions, covenants, and restrictions
      set forth in the Note shall remain in full force and effect among the
      parties.




2.  Payment .
      Section
      1 of the Note shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows: "Subject
      to
      the terms and conditions of this Note, Borrower promises to pay to the order
      of
      Lender the principal amount of One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
      ($1,250,000), together with interest on the unpaid principal mount from the
      date
      of this Note. The first six payments are due on May 8, 2005, June 8, 2005,
      July
      8, 2005, August 8, 2005, September 8, 2005, and October 8, 2005, and these
      payments shall be interest-only payments in the amount of $10,416.67 each.
      A
      payment in the amount of $23,482.16 each shall be due on November 8, 2005 and
      December 8, 2005 that includes an interest payment of $10,417.67 and a principal
      payment of $13,064.49. A payment in the amount of $43,482.16 shall be due on
      January 8, 2006 and subsequent payments of $43,482.16 each are due on the eight
      day of each following month until April 8, 2008, at which time the unpaid
      principal amount, together with accrued interest is due in its entirety."
      Section 1 of the Note as amended herein shall remain in full force and effect
      among the parties.


**BORROWER:**MICROHELIX, INC., an Oregon
              corporationBy:
            /s/ Tyram
              H. PettitTyram
              H. PettitTitle: President
              & CEO


**LENDER:**/s/ Marti
                D. LundyMarti
                D. Lundy
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. CH A RLES LU CI O U S, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 10584 D. C. No . 2 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 2 2 4 - RL H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R oge rL . H unt , C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B e f o r e : H A W K I N S , S I L V E R M A N , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . C h ar le s L u c io u s ap p e a ls f r o m th e 6 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f orbe i ng af

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e arm , i n vi ol a t i on of 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED OC T 4 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10584 2 L u c io u s c o n te n d s th a t h is b e lo w - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e w a s s ub s tan tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le b e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e te rm in e dth a t h e w a s n o t h arm e db yh is i nd i ctm entbei ng del ay ed. In l i gh tof the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) se nt enci ng fa ct ors and the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng the 10 -m on th d ow nw ar d v ar i ance L uci ou s w as grant ed for hi s r ehabi l i t at i ve ef fort s duri ng the i nd i ctm entdel ay pe r i od, L uc i ous ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory , a nd the ne w c r i m e s L uc i ous c om m i tt e d dur i ng the i ndi c tm e ntde l aype r i od, L uc i ous ’ s be l ow - G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e i s not s ub s tan tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). AF F I RME D.
#### Abdel-Jabor MALIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas L. LAVALLEY, Corrections Officer, Officer Buckly, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1221, Docket 92-2796.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Submitted May 5, 1993.

Decided May 21, 1993.

Abdel-Jabor Malik, pro se.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Sol. Gen., Nancy A. Spiegel, Andrea Oser, Asst. Attys. Gen., Albany, NY, on the brief, for appellees.

Before MESKILL, Chief Judge, PIERCE and WALKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Abdel-Jabor Malik is a *pro se*civil litigant who has been granted *in forma pauperis*status in this litigation. His complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two corrections officers for excessive use of force was dismissed after a bench trial and judgment was entered on December 15, 1992. On appeal, Malik’s principal argument is that the magistrate judge should have secured the attendance at trial of two witnesses because Malik was unable to do so himself. The court refused to pay the necessary witness fees, even though Malik was proceeding *in forma pau-peris.*

We affirm the judgment of the district court and write in order to bring this Circuit in line with the various other circuits that have held that federal courts are not authorized to waive or pay witness fees on behalf of an *in forma pauperis*litigant. *See, e.g., Tedder v. Odel,*890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam); *Boring v. Kozakiewicz,*833 F.2d 468, 474 (3d Cir.1987), *cert. denied,*485 U.S. 991, 108 S.Ct. 1298, 99 L.Ed.2d 508 (1988); *McNeil v. Lowney,*831 F.2d 1368, 1373 (7th Cir.1987), *cert. denied,*485 U.S. 965, 108 S.Ct. 1236, 99 L.Ed.2d 435 (1988); *Cookish v. Cunningham,*787 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam); *United States Marshals Service v. Means,*741 F.2d 1053, 1056-57 (8th Cir.1984); *Johnson v. Hubbard,*698 F.2d 286, 289-90 (6th Cir.), *cert. denied,*464 U.S. 917, 104 S.Ct. 282, 78 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983). We agree with our sister circuits that no reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 supports the contention that Congress authorized the federal courts to waive or pay for Malik’s witness fees.

The Supreme Court has written in the context of indigent litigants that “the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress.” *United States v. MacCollom,*426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 2089, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976). Because Congress has not authorized courts to pay an indigent litigant’s witness fees, the district court did not err by refusing to pay Malik’s.

We have considered Malik’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 97-50205

_______________

CATHY KELLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

AMERICAN HEYER-SCHULTE CORPORATION,

formerly known as Heyer-Schulte Corporation, et al.,

Defendants,

BAXTER HEALTHCARE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

and

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-93-CV-145)

_________________________

March 5, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, SMITH and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We are compelled to notice potential problems with our

jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. We have asked the parties
2

to brief the question whether we have jurisdiction in this case.

Having reviewed the briefs and heard oral argument on the question

of jurisdiction, and having consulted the applicable law and

pertinent portions of the record, we conclude that we are without

jurisdiction to consider this appeal under the binding authority of

Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298, 301-02 (5th Cir.

1978). 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. There being no final,

appealable judgment, this matter remains in the district court,

which retains jurisdiction to revisit its rulings if appropriate.

In this regard, we call to the district court’s attention that on

January 20, 1998, the en banc court heard oral argument in

No. 95-20492, Moore v. Ashland Chem., Inc. Also, on December 15,

1997, the Supreme Court decided General Elec. Co. v. Joiner,

118 S. Ct. 512 (1997). The district court may wish to await the

en banc decision in Moore before deciding whether to address any of

its rulings herein. We intimate absolutely no view as to what

action, if any, the district court should take in regard to these

matters, as we are without jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 31.2
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
    2002
    Form 10-K
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) Rules 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
                Bret
    W. Johnsen
EXHIBIT 23.1
  INDEPENDENT
    AUDITORS CONSENT
  333-128615, 333-107555, 333-101569, 333-86595, 333-65721, 333-40697, 333-34677 Form S-8 Form 10-K
# Fourth C ourt of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 15, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00761

- CR

Jeffery John ROMERO, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17

- 1680

- CR

- B Honorable Gary L. Steel , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for leave to file a late docketing statement is GRANTED

.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixe d the seal of the said court on this 15th day of November, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  /s/ William C. BousemaWilliam C. Bousema, CPAExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trimeris, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin Mattingly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ MARTIN A. MATTINGLY
|Martin A. Mattingly    
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|March 16, 2010         



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Trimeris, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(No. 333-44145, No. 333-44147, No. 333-64064, No. 333-66401, No. 333-74304, No. 333-90377, No. 333-107508, and No. 333-129600) on Forms S-8 and the Registration Statements (No. 333-31662, No. 333-60724,No. 333-76689, No. 333-81708 and No. 333-98587) on Forms S-3 of Trimeris, Inc. of our reports dated March 8, 2006, with respect to the balance sheets of Trimeris, Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the relatedstatements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of Trimeris, Inc. 

 

**/s/ KPMG LLP**

 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

March 8, 2006
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.46


 


 



	
 


 


  

	
355 Madison Ave


	
Morristown, NJ 07960


	
P: (973) 538-1194


	
F: (973) 538-1196


	  
	
www.boomerangsystems.com


	
We Make Real Estate TM












October 28, 2011







Dear Investor:







You hereby have caused Boomerang’s Line of Credit with Highlands State Bank in the amount of $1,000,000 to be paid in full, thereby, stepping in the shoes of Highlands State Bank.  The Company now owes you $1,000,000. You agree that upon the finalization of the documents related to the private placement by the Company of convertible notes and warrants that you will convert the loan into an equivalent amount of convertible note and warrants being issued in such private placement as if you had invested the amount of loan in the private placement.  Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing.








	
Sincerely,

	  	
Agreed and Accepted:

	 
	  	  	  	 
	
/s/ Joseph R. Bellantoni

	  	
/s/ Gail Mulvihill

	 
	
Joseph R. Bellantoni

	  	
By:  Gail Mulvihill, President

	 
	
CFO

	  	
Lake Isle Corporation
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.16

                 PRENTISS PROPERTIES ACQUISITION PARTNERS, L.P.

     First Amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
          Partnership of Prentiss Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P.

                                    RECITALS

     A. Belair desires to assign and Belport Realty Corporation ("Belport")
                                                                  -------
desires to acquire 120,608 8.30% Series B Preferred Units of the Partnership.

     B. Belmar desires to assign and Belport desires to acquire 429,392 8.30%
Series B Preferred Units of the Partnership.

     Pursuant to Article XI of the Third Amended and Restated Agreement of
Limited Partnership (the "Agreement") of the Partnership, Prentiss Properties I,
                          ---------
Inc. as the sole general partner of the Partnership (the "General Partner"),
                                                          ---------------
desires to amend the Agreement to admit each Assignee as a Substitute Limited
Partner with respect to the Assigned Units; terms being used herein as defined
in the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the General Partner hereby adopts the following amendment
     to the Agreement.

     1. Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto.
                         ---------

     2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 4.02(d)(viii) or
elsewhere in the Agreement, none of the 8.30% Series B Preferred Units so
assigned to Belport may be exchanged for Series B Shares prior to January 1,
2010.

     3. Belport accepts and agrees to be bound by the terms and provisions of
the Agreement.

                            [Signature Page Follows]

<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the General Partner and the Assignee have executed this
     First Amendment as of December    , 2001.
                                    ---

                                      GENERAL PARTNER

                                      PRENTISS PROPERTIES I, INC.


                                      By:   /s/ Michael A. Ernst
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:   Michael A. Ernst
                                         Title:  Senior Vice President and CFO


                                      ASSIGNEE AND SUBSTITUTE LIMITED
                                      PARTNER:

                                      BELPORT REALTY CORPORATION


                                      By:  /s/ William R. Cross
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:    William R. Cross
                                         Title:   Vice President