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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form  10-KSB of  Cortech,  Inc.,  for the year ended  December  31,  2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                          0000728478
<NAME>                                         CORTECH, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         7,107
<SECURITIES>                                   6,611
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,799
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          207
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,588
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,799
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               877
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                423
<INCOME-TAX>                                   22
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            401
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   401
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.21



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.3

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation of ourreport dated April 14, 2003 relating to the combined financial statements of Calvin Klein, Inc. which appear in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation dated February 12, 2003.  We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in suchRegistration Statement.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

New York, New York

November 17, 2003
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONDELL L. WEBB,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden;

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-17364

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00291-JKS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Rondell L. Webb appeals from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

AUG 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-17364

Webb contends that the district court erred in dismissing as untimely his

petition challenging denial of parole. The district court found the petition untimely

under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and also determined that

various claims asserted by Webb were procedurally defaulted, unexhausted,

challenges to the application of state law not cognizable on federal habeas review. 

We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Buckley v. Terhune,

441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). 

The statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) began to run on January

10, 2002, the day Webb’s time to file an administrative appeal lapsed and the

challenged decision became final. See Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1082-85

(9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, his federal habeas petition, signed and presumably

submitted to prison officials for mailing on February 2, 2005, was untimely.

AFFIRMED.
#### J. A. SMITH et ux., Relators, v. Robert YOUNG, District Judge, et al., Respondents.

Motion No. 16537.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Sept. 30, 1955.

Lewis E. Miller, Jr., Fort Worth, for relators.

George E. Hosey, Fort Worth, for respondent Alberte E. Parks in the trial court.

PER CURIAM.

J. A. Smith and his wife, relators, have filed a motion for leave to file a petition for mandamus to require the Honorable Robert Young, Judge of the 48th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, to hold Alberte E. Parks in contempt of a final judgment in an injunction case. According' to the relators, Parks continued to obstruct, a certain driveway over which the relators-were entitled to ingress and egress after-having been permanently enjoined from so-doing by a judgment entered in the 48th District Court. This judgment has become final. Relators filed and obtained a hearing upon their motion to hold Parks in contempt of the court’s final decree. Judge-Young refused to hold Parks in contempt..

In cases of this kind a Court of Civil Appeals does not have jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus. Under provisions of Articles 1823 and 1824 of Vernon’s Revised Civil Statutes of 1925, we may issue writs of mandamus only in the exercise of our jurisdiction once it. has attached or in the protection of our-potential jurisdiction. No other provision, of law relative to our power of mandamus, could possibly have application to the instant controversy.

Our jurisdiction has not attached: and since the judgment of injunction has-become final in the trial court we have no> potential jurisdiction. See 28 Tex.Jur., p,. *719601, “Mandamus”, sec. 48, “Courts of Civil Appeals”; Joslyn v. Fennell, Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1950, 229 S.W.2d 838, and cases cited.

Motion for leave to file petition for mandamus is denied.
# ~IIISDU RECEIVED Prllsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

## MAR 1 9 2014 2300 N Street. NW I Washrngton, DC 20037-1122 I tel 202.663.8000 I fax 202.663.8007

March17,2014 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET
Kenneth P. Quinn Partner tel202.663.8898 kquinn@pillsburylaw.com

Re: Requestfor Hearing

## d'~\l\- 

# 0 \ 

# \o Learjet, Inc. FAA Case No. 2012CE430011 To the Hearing Docket Clerk: Learjet, Inc. hereby requests a hearing in response to the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty inthe above-numbered case, pursuantto 14 C.F.R. Part 13.16. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day ofMarch2014.

KennethP. Quinn Counsel to Learjet, Inc. cc: David Kessler Federal AviationAdministration Central Region Office ofRegional Counsel 901 Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641
www.pillsburylaw.com 404396287v1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132254 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132254 

 COA: 260153 

Berrien CC: 04-403553-FH 

MIGUEL C. LUNA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-DK-22-037 Postbaccalaureate Research Education                               ( print page 14512)                            Program in Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases (PRIDE).                    

*Date:*                         March 27, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Tori Stone, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 827-0994,                         *tori.stone@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 21, 2024. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-03911 Filed 2-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 03, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 03, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15A1700. PINEDA REO, LLC. v. PREF CHARLOTTE PARTNERS I, LLC. et al..
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### SHEILA M. GLEIFERT ET AL. *v.*JULIE A. PALACKO

(14177)

Foti, Landau and Hennessy, Js.

Argued January 18

decision released February 13, 1996

*927
      *Linda Clough,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*A. Jeffrey Somers,*for the appellee (defendant).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50608

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESSE GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-270-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesse Garza was convicted of one count of failing to register as a sex

offender. Now, Garza appeals the district court’s judgment concerning the

fourth revocation of his supervised release, which resulted in his receiving a

sentence of 24 months in prison and a lifetime term of supervised release. First,

he argues that his sentence is improper because the district court erroneously

relied upon the factors given in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) when sentencing him. 

Next, he contends that he should not have received a lifetime term of supervised

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 24, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-50608 Document: 00512319736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2013
No. 12-50608

release because, when he pleaded guilty to the underlying offense, he was

misinformed and told that the maximum possible term of supervised release was

three years. 

As Garza acknowledges, these claims are reviewed for plain error only due

to his failure to raise them in the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw,

580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Under this standard, Garza must show a

clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). This court has discretion to correct a plain

error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of the proceedings. See id. This standard has not been met.

With respect to Garza’s first claim, our reading of the revocation hearing

does not support his position that the district court erred by relying upon the

factors given in § 3553(a)(2)(A) to set his sentence. See United States v. Miller,

634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011). Rather, this review shows that the district

court was primarily concerned with the danger that Garza posed to the public,

which is a permissible factor to consider when imposing sentence following

revocation. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 844; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); § 3553(a)(2)(C). 

Garza has not shown error, plain or otherwise, concerning this claim. Similarly,

Garza’s arguments concerning the admonishments he received at the time of his

initial plea do not establish that the district court committed error, plain or

otherwise, by choosing to impose the lifetime term of supervised release that is

statutorily authorized. See § 3583(e)(2), (k).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-50608 Document: 00512319736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2013
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 122,252

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

CARRODY M. BUCHHORN,

Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

When one of the justices is disqualified to participate in a decision of the issues 

raised in an appeal or petition for review, and the remaining six justices are equally 

divided as to the proper disposition of the issues on appeal or review, the judgment of the 

court from which the appeal or petition for review is made must stand.

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed August 13, 2021. 

Appeal from Douglas District Court; SALLY D. POKORNY, judge. Opinion filed August 19, 2022.

Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court stands. Judgment of the district court is 

reversed, and the case is remanded with directions. 

William J. Skepnek, of The Skepnek Law Firm, P.A., of Lawrence, argued the cause, and Keynen 

J. (K.J.) Wall, Russell J. Keller, and Quentin M. Templeton, of Forbes Law Group, LLC, of Overland 

Park, and Stephan L. Skepnek, of The Sader Law Firm, of Kansas City, Missouri, and Kevin Babbit, of 

Fagan & Emert, LLC, of Lawrence, were with him on the briefs for appellant. 

Kris Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general, argued the cause, and Emma C. Halling, assistant district 

attorney, Kate Duncan Butler, assistant district attorney, Joshua David Seiden, deputy district attorney, 

Charles E. Branson, former district attorney, Suzanne Valdez, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, 

attorney general, were on the briefs for appellee.
2

PER CURIAM: This matter involves a child who died unexpectedly at the home 

daycare where Carrody M. Buchhorn worked. After the Douglas County coroner ruled 

the child's death was instantaneous and caused by a blow to the head, a jury convicted 

Buchhorn of second-degree murder. A Court of Appeals panel reversed Buchhorn's 

conviction and remanded for a new trial because her trial counsel's constitutionally 

deficient performance prejudiced her right to a fair trial. This court granted review. 

Justice Wall took no part in this review because of his prior connection with the 

case while in private practice before joining the Supreme Court. The remaining six 

members of the court are equally divided on how the issues on review should be decided. 

We stated the applicable rule in Paulsen v. U.S.D. No. 368, 239 Kan. 180, 182, 717 P.2d 

1051 (1986):

"The general rule in this jurisdiction, and elsewhere, is that when one of the 

justices is disqualified to participate in a decision of issues raised in an appeal and the 

remaining six justices are equally divided in their conclusions, the judgment of the trial 

court must stand. [Citations omitted.] See also Kansas Constitution, Art. 3, § 2, which 

provides that the concurrence of four justices shall be necessary to a decision."

The court being equally divided, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the court 

from which review is sought, reversing the district court and remanding with directions 

stands. Buchhorn's cross-petition for review is dismissed as moot. 

WALL, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of YFC 355 Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

November 10,2004
Exhibit 32.1


                       Wings & Things, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Wings & Things, Inc. (the "Company")
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

a.    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

                            /s/ Linda L. Perry
Date: 11-7-05               ___________________________________
                            Linda L. Perry
                            Principal Executive officer
                            Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32





Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Entravision Communications Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: May 7, 2010/s/ WALTER F. ULLOAWalter F. UlloaChief Executive Officer


Date: May 7, 2010/s/ CHRISTOPHER T. YOUNGChristopher T. YoungChief Financial Officer
#### Cal Owen GARRETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28843.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 20, 1957.

Frank Sparks, Eastland, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Under an indictment charging assault with intent to murder, the appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at one year in jail.

Our able State’s Attorney confesses error, and we agree.

In submitting aggravated assault to the jury in his charge, the court authorized a conviction only if they found that the assault was committed with a deadly weapon.

In the course of the fight at an establishment where drinking was in progress, the injured party took the instrument vised in the assault away from the appellant, later delivered it to the officers, and it was introduced in evidence. One of the officers testified that the blade at its longest point was 3⁄4" in length. The instrument accompanies the record, and we find his description to be accurate.

The injured party testified that he was treated at the hospital for about an hour, went home and went to bed, and was downtown the first thing the following morning.

The doctor who treated him testified that he did not consider the wounds as serious ones if properly treated, that two of them were just through the skin, while the third was approximately two inches deep for a distance of four inches, and that they did not impair his capacity to “use his arms and get around.”

The instrument used was clearly not a deadly weapon per se and does not appear to have become one from the manner of its use.

We have concluded that the evidence does not support the conviction for an assault with a deadly weapon. Miller v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 249, 128 S.W. 117; Gonzalez v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 108, 172 S.W.2d 97; and Tipps v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 207 S.W.2d 410.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.