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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         625
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                20298
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             40363
<PP&E>                                   194466149
<DEPRECIATION>                              (26437)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            19500075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      4674696
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     88481
<OTHER-SE>                                14736898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              19500075
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            441749
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          296358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (738082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (738082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (738082)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                  100,777
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           200,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                              6,921
<INVENTORY>                                             116,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        531,069
<PP&E>                                                3,535,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                        1,660,688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        2,688,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   763,200
<BONDS>                                               1,652,014
<COMMON>                                                     10
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                               26,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          2,688,026
<SALES>                                               4,541,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      4,593,972
<CGS>                                                 3,299,776
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         3,299,776
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      1,182,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       45,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          66,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                             13,276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      53,220
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             53,220
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0.50


</TABLE>
#### TAFEL et al. v. HIGHLAND CHEVROLET CO., Inc.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 21, 1952.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1952.

■Samuel B. Kirby, Jr., Louisville, for appellants.

Morris & Garlove, Louisville, for appel-lee.

STEWART, Justice.

This is an appeal by the Louisville *&*Jefferson County Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals, hereinafter referred to as the “Board”, from a judgment holding that the action of the Board was arbitrary and unreasonable in refusing to grant ap-pellee, Highland Chevrolet Company, a permit to open a doorway in and driveway from a new addition to its building onto Woodbourne Avenue in the City of Louisville.

The Board appeals, relying upon the following grounds for reversal: (1) the circuit court did not have jurisdiction of the appeal taken to it because of defect of parties; and (2) the action of the Board was not arbitrary and unreasonable and should have been sustained.

Appellee filed its statement of appeal in the Jefferson Circuit Court, naming as parties defendant the members, secretary, enforcement officer and chief inspector of the Board. Eighteen objectors who had appeared at the hearing and had entered their names as parties of record in protest against the application for a variance were not served with notice of the appeal.

The procedure on an appeal from the Board to circuit court is set forth by KRS 100.085 as follows: “Any party or parties of record, jointly or severally, claiming to be injured or aggrieved by any decision, order or ruling of said board, may appeal from such decision, order or ruling to the circuit court of such county, * * *. Such appeals shall be taken to said circuit court within thirty days after 'notice of such decision, order or ruling has been given as required, by giving notice of the áppeal to said board and all other parties of record, * *

This case cannot be distinguished in principle from Duncan v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Comm., Ky., 238 S.W.2d 127. In the Duncan case the appeal to the circuit court was from a decision of the Zoning Commission and was controlled -by KRS 100.057. Here the appeal to the lower court was from the Board and the above quoted section, as we have stated, governs. The language of the *347two sections relating to appeals is practically identical; each requires that the parties of record he served with notice. The Duncan case fully discusses the question before us and we deem it unnecessary to repeat here what was written there. On the authority of the last mentioned decision, the special demurrer should have been sustained.

It becomes unnecessary to consider the second ground. However, we have read the entire record and we feel we should express our view that under the evidence the trial court reached the correct conclusion on this ground.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 3

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 15 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-10 Filed 03/05/21 Page 16 of 16
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

RODRICKA JERMAINE GAMBRELL, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:06-cr-01094-GRA) 

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Rodricka Jermaine Gambrell, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. 

Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Rodricka Jermaine Gambrell appeals the district 

court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence 

filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have 

reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. 

Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under 

§ 3582(c) “is subject to the discretion of the district court”); 

United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). 

Thus, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons 

stated there. See United States v. Gambrell, No. 6:06-cr-01094-

GRA (D.S.C. June 5, 2009). Further, we deny Gambrell’s motion 

for transcripts at Government expense. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Skinny Nutritional Corp. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-161178 and 333-161677) of our report which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern dated April 15, 2011, with respect to our audits of the financial statements of Skinny Nutritional Corp. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Skinny Nutritional Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ Marcum llp





Marcum llp


Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
#### MILSTEAD v. STATE.

No. 26692.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 16, 1953.

■No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for drunk driving, with punishment assessed at a fine of $75.

Because of the absence of any evidence that appellant has entered into a recognizance in the trial court, or has given an ap^ peal bond, or is in custody of the officers pending this appeal, the state moves to dismiss the appeal.

Under the authorities of Locke v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 104, 225 S.W.2d 179, and Brackeen v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 98, 225 S.W.2d 180, the motion is well taken.

■ Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
TS- AMID10/20/40

Attachment #7

Pt. 2, Sec. B, 1a

Processing Information on the New Chemical Substance s at Industrial Sites

Controlled by OthersTS

- AMID10/20/40 Attachment # 7

- A

**Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical Substances at**

**Industrial Sites Controlled by Others** 

**– Direct Additives in Flotation Products** TS

- AMID10/20/40 Attachment # 7

- B

**Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical Substances at**

**Industrial Sites Controlled by Others** 

**– Adhesion Promoters**
Exhibit 99a


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned, as chief executive officer of The L.S. Starrett
Company (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's
knowledge:

1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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 Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Douglas A. Starrett
Douglas A. Starrett
Chief Executive Officer


Dated: November 12, 2002



ex99adascert.doc	-2-
#### THOMPSON et al. v. SMITH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 14, 1954.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1954.

Beverly M. Clark, Glasgow, for appellants.

Carroll M. Redford, Glasgow, for appel-lee.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

The appellants filed an action against the appellee, Ada Smith, to recover for legal services rendered her without an express contract, and, on their petition and amended petition being adjudged demurrable, they refused to plead further and appealed the ruling.

Ada Smith was left $200 by the will of V. D. McMillin who left the bulk of her estate to A. C. McMillin, Jr. The appellants were employed as attorneys by Magdalene Isenberg and others to contest the will of V. D. McMillin, and filed such an action in the Barren Circuit Court. Ada Smith did not join in the contest so was made a defendant in that action, and she was not represented by counsel therein. The appellants alleged that through their efforts a compromise settlement was reached in the will contest in which the contestees agreed to pay the contestants $10,000 if they,would withdraw their contest and allow the entry of a judgment sustaining the will. The contestants were willing to accept the offer, but Ada Smith, as a nominal contestee supporting the will, refused to consent to it unless she were paid $2,500. Since ' no agreed judgment could be entered without her consent, she got the $2,500 demanded, and an agreed judgment was entered sustaining the will.

It is apparent that the appellee seized the opportunity to benefit from the work done by the appellants in obtaining a compromise offer to settle the will contest. Theretofore, she had been content to be a nominal contestee in that action and to accept the $200 bequest made to her in the will. When she demanded and obtained a generous slice *654of the compromise cake, she impliedly promised to pay the bakers. By accepting the $2,500 she, in all practical effect, became a contestant, a member of a class represented by the appellants and, as such, is liable to them for the reasonable worth of their services. Wallace v. Fiske, 8 Cir., 80 F.2d 897, 107 A.L.R. 726, and annotation.

Because it is' not apparent from the record that the appellee had notice of the ex-' press fee-contract between the appellants and the nominal contestants of the will, we cannot say, on the basis of this record, that she is impliedly bound by it. However, the petition reveals that the appellants are entitled to a reasonable fee. for their services, arid the amount stated in the ex-' press contract is not unreasonable.

The judgment dismissing the petition is-set aside and the case remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5603 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Copoly(acrylic acid/itaconic acid). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. ELLISON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Copoly(acrylic 

acid/itaconic acid). 

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

3 SECTION 1. COPOLY(ACRYLIC ACID/ITACONIC ACID). 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Copoly(acrylic acid/itaconic 

acid) (CAS No. 25948–33– 

8) (provided for in subheading 3906.90.50) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5603 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-Ffor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric Merrigan, Chief Financial Officer, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theU.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(i)                                     the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Eric Merrigan              |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Eric Merrigan            |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer |

 

December22, 2006

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited and will be retained by ChemGenexPharmaceutical Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 

----
* 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. 97-50914

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAIMES-ARROYO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-96-CR-134-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Jaimes-Arroyo appeals his conviction for

conspiracy to enter a false claim to United States citizenship,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Jaimes has failed to establish

that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the

Government, was insufficient to support his conviction. See

United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982) (en

banc), aff’d on other grounds, 462 U.S. 356 (1983); see also

United States v. Henry, 604 F.2d 908, 916 (5th Cir.
No. 97-50914

-2-

1979)(presentation of a false birth certificate by an alien as

evidence of asserted citizenship constitutes a violation of 18

U.S.C. § 911); United States v. Harrell, 894 F.2d 120, 126-27

(5th Cir. 1990)(Government need not negate possibility of

naturalization to establish lack of United States citizenship). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Jaimes’ discovery request and his motion for a continuance in

order to subpoena a witness who was outside of the United States. 

See United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 1994). 

The same is true of the testimony Jaimes sought to elicit on

cross-examination of Agent Trevino. See United States v. Duncan,

919 F.2d 981, 988 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Gordon, 780

F.2d 1165, 1175-76 (5th Cir. 1986). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Ex parte Henry Thomas POWERS, alias Buck Powers.

No. 27299.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1954.

.‘Ño attorney on appeal for appelldrit.'

; Wesley' Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, ■ for - the- State. . - *;■*

WOODLEY, Judge.

¡This is an original application for habeas corpus, relator contending that the conviction he is serving in the penitentiary, in Cause No. 598 in the District Court of Winkler County, was not final because of his having given notice of appeal to this, court.

■ Since the application was ordered- filed., the appeal has .reached this court and- has been dismissed upon motion of relator.

The judgment in question now being a final judgment and relator’s incarceration thereunder being lawful, the question raised has become moot.-

The application is denied.
FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ March 02, 2021 lad

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 76 Filed 03/02/21 Page 1 of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 570 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance the roles of dentists 

and allied dental personnel in the Nation’s disaster response framework, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mr. TERRY, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. 

TOWNS, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, 

Mr. ENGEL, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mrs. 

MYRICK, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. 

RUNYAN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. WHITFIELD, and Mr. DOLD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance the 

roles of dentists and allied dental personnel in the Nation’s disaster response framework, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dental Emergency Re5 sponder Act of 2011’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 570 IH

1 SEC. 2. DENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS: PUBLIC 

2 HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESPONSE. 

3 (a) NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY STRATEGY.—Sec4 tion 2802(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 300hh–1(b)(3)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

7 by inserting ‘‘and which may include dental health 

8 facilities’’ after ‘‘mental health facilities’’; and 

9 (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘‘(which 

10 may include such dental health assets)’’ after ‘‘med11 ical assets’’. 

12 (b) ALL-HAZARDS PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL

13 RESPONSE CURRICULA AND TRAINING.—Section 

14 319F(a)(5)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

15 U.S.C. 247d–6(a)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘public 

16 health or medical’’ and inserting ‘‘public health, medical, 

17 or dental’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS