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

<ARTICLE>                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CIK>                                         0000094610
<NAME>                                        STONE CONTAINER CORPORATION
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                         50
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 596
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   74
<INVENTORY>                                                   517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            1,216
<PP&E>                                                      3,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 66
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              8,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         798
<BONDS>                                                     3,786
<COMMON>                                                    2,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                    78
<OTHER-SE>                                                   (109)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                8,543
<SALES>                                                     1,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            1,079
<CGS>                                                         967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             94
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (94)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  (29)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (65)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (65)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 .00
        


</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT TO


CLEANSPARK, INC.


2017 INCENTIVE PLAN


 


WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors and stockholders of CleanSpark, Inc. (the “Company”) have adopted the CleanSpark, Inc. 2017 Equity Incentive
Plan, as amended by that First Amendment to the CleanSpark, Inc. 2017 Incentive Plan, dated July 16, 2020 (as amended, the “Plan”);


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 4.1 of the Plan, a total of 1,500,000 shares of the common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of the Company (the “Common
Stock”) have been reserved for issuance under the Plan;


WHEREAS, the Company
desires to increase the number of shares issuable under the Plan to 3,500,000 shares, including shares previously issued thereunder, and
to revise the language set forth in Section 19 of the Plan; and


WHEREAS, Section 17.1
of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan from time to time, subject only to certain limitations specified therein;


NOW, THEREFORE, the
following amendments and modifications are hereby made a part of the Plan subject to, and effective as of the date of, the approval of
stockholders of the Plan on September 15, 2021:


1.   Section 4.1
of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:


Subject to adjustment
from time to time as provided in subsection 15.1, a maximum of 3,500,000 shares of Common Stock shall be available for issuance under
the Plan. Shares issued under the Plan shall be drawn from authorized and unissued shares or shares now held or subsequently acquired
by the Company as treasury shares.


2.  Section 19
of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:


The effective date
(the “Effective Date”) is the date on which the Plan is adopted by the Board. If the stockholders of the Company do not approve
the Plan or an amendment thereto that requires stockholder approval pursuant to Section 422 of the Code, as applicable, within 12 months
before or after the Board’s adoption of the Plan, any Incentive Stock Options granted under the Plan will be treated as Nonqualified
Stock Options. For purposes of determining the appropriate treatment of stock options granted under the Plan, the adoption of any amendment
to the Plan requiring stockholder approval pursuant to Section 422 of the Code shall constitute the adoption of a new plan.


3.       In
all other respects, the Plan, as amended, is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has executed this Second Amendment to the 2017 Incentive Plan as of September 17, 2021.


 


	 	 	 	 
	 	CLEANSPARK, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 	/s/ Zachary K. Bradford
	 	
    Name:  

    Its:
	 	 Zachary K. Bradford

Chief Executive Officer and President
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 25, 2016 107137 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TERRY MACON, Also Known as

TENNESSEE,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: August 18, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Salvatore Adamo, Albany, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan

Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Garry, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County

(Williams, J.), rendered February 4, 2014, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a

controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the

third degree and waived his right to appeal. He was thereafter

sentenced, in accord with the terms of the plea agreement, to

five years in prison, to be followed by two years of postrelease

supervision. Defendant now appeals. 
-2- 107137 

Initially, we note that defendant's waiver of the right to

appeal was valid. County Court explained that this right was

separate from the other rights that defendant was forfeiting by

pleading guilty and defendant communicated his understanding. He

then proceeded to execute a detailed written waiver in open court

after reviewing it with counsel. Thus, defendant is foreclosed

by his valid waiver from challenging the severity of the sentence

(see People v Miller, 137 AD3d 1485, 1485 [2016]; Matter of

Rushlow, 137 AD3d 1482, 1483 [2016]). 

Defendant also challenges the voluntariness of his guilty

plea. Although it is not precluded by his valid waiver of the

right to appeal, this claim has not been preserved for our

review, as the record does not reveal that he made an appropriate

postallocution motion (see People v Blair, 136 AD3d 1105, 1106

[2016], lvs denied 27 NY3d 1066, 1072 [2016]; People v Walker,

135 AD3d 1244, 1244-1245 [2016]). Notably, defendant did not

make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon

his guilt and thus trigger the narrow exception to the

preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665

[1988]; People v Walker, 135 AD3d at 1245). Further, defendant's

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel implicates the

voluntariness of his guilty plea and, although it also survives

his appeal waiver, likewise has not been preserved for our

review, for the reason noted above (see People v Hughes, 134 AD3d

1301, 1302 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 966 [2016]; People v Bethea,

133 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 992 [2016]). 

Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
1 

WEST\294057634.2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD, and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION TO TRANSFER 

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung) hereby 

notify the Court that Samsung does not oppose Apple’s Motion to Transfer to the Northern 

District of California filed in Case No. 6:20-cv-00505-ADA at Dkt. No. 27. 

Dated: May 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ John M. Guaragna 

John M. Guaragna 

Texas Bar No 24043308 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500 

Austin, TX 78701-3799 

Tel: 512.457.7125 

Fax: 512.457.7001 

john.guaragna@dlapiper.com 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 47 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

WEST\294057634.2

Mark K. Fowler (Pro hac vice)

Bar No. 124235 

mark.fowler@dlapiper.com 

Erik Fuehrer (Pro hac vice) 

Bar No. 252578 

Erik.fuehrer@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

2000 University Avenue 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214 

Tel: 650.833.2000 

Fax: 650.833.2001 

Tiffany Miller (Pro hac vice) 

Tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com 

Susan Acquista (Pro hac vice) 

Susan.acquista@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

401 B Street, Suite 1700 

San Diego, CA 92101-4297 

Tel: 619.699.2700 

Fax: 619.699.2701 

Benjamin Mueller (Pro hac vice) 

Benjamin.mueller@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 

Chicago, IL 60606-0089 

Tel: 312.368.4000 

Fax: 312.236.7516 

ATTORNEYS FOR SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

CO. LTD, and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on this 4th day of May 2021, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document 

through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(b)(1). Any other counsel of record 

will be served by a facsimile transmission and/or first class mail. 

/s/ John M. Guaragna 

John M. Guaragna 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 47 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q DATED
MARCH 26, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<CIK> 0000094673
<NAME> STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                            217,778
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     629,338 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       336,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,298,619
<PP&E>                            335,283 <F1>   
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,782,425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             775,260
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           10,007
<OTHER-SE>                        981,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,782,425
<SALES>                           352,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  517,503
<CGS>                             196,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     294,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   73,476
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  3,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     9,113
<INCOME-TAX>                        3,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 5,813
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        5,813
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.06

<FN>
<F1> Asset values for the interim period represent net amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 58076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24027]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7594]

Designation of the Indian Mujahideen, Also Known as Indian 
Mujahedeen, Also Known as Indian Mujahidin, Also Known as Islamic 
Security Force-Indian Mujahideen (ISF-IM), as a Foreign Terrorist 
Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to 
find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter ``INA'') (8 
U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to the Indian Mujahideen, also known 
as Indian Mujahedeen, also known as Indian Mujahidin, also known as 
Islamic Security Force-Indian Mujahideen (ISF-IM).
    Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and 
its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 219 
of the INA.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 6, 2011.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-24027 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code) Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies that: The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company. Dated: May 10, 2007
  /s/ Louis J.
  CappelliName: Louis
  J. CappelliTitle:
  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Report or as a separate disclosure document. 40
#### YANCY v. STATE.

No. 26463.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 27, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and his punishment was assessed by the jury at a fine of $250.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7576

JASON ORTEGA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-694)

Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Ortega, Appellant Pro Se. Williams W. Muse, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jason Ortega seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Ortega has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5559 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on certain footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on certain footwear. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR. 

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: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5559 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Sports footwear, tennis 

shoes, basketball shoes, 

gym shoes, training shoes 

and the like with outer 

soles of rubber or plastics 

and uppers of textile materials, having uppers of 

which over 50 percent of 

the external surface area 

(including any leather accessories or reinforcements) is leather, the foregoing for men (provided 

for in subheading 

6404.11.20) ....................... 0.2% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 4, 2018

NO. 03-17-00035-CV

Dr. Ruthie Harper and PLLG, LLC, Appellants

v.

Wellbeing Genomics Pty Ltd., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, FIELD, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 18, 2016. This 

Court’s opinion and judgment dated April 4, 2018, are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record 

and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in that portion of the

trial court’s judgment awarding appellee damages and attorney’s fees on its breach-of-contract 

claim. Therefore, the Court reverses that portion of the trial court’s judgment and renders 

judgment that appellee take nothing on its breach-of-contract claim. The Court affirms the 

judgment of the trial court in all other respects. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred 

by that party, both in this Court and the court below.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7191

HOWARD CLEVELAND, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEVE DOBSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-00-641-1)

Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard Cleveland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Howard Cleveland, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order and judgment denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was

not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 9,

2001. Cleveland’s notice of appeal was filed on July 4, 2001, the

earliest date Cleveland could have submitted the notice to prison

officials for mailing. Because Appellant failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
1

Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn

Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:51 AM

To: Tier 3 Rule Team

Cc: Hengst, Benjamin; Cook, Leila; Mylan, Christopher; Le, Madison

Subject: FYI: Interesting Tier 3 op-ed from physicians

FYI only, see below. 

From: Paul Billings [mailto:Paul.Billings@lung.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:32 PM 

To: Grundler, Christopher; Charmley, William; Sargeant, Kathryn 

Subject: GUEST OPINION: Rx for Traffic Pollution: Cleaner Gasoline and Vehicles STAT 

See this op-ed running from two pulmonary physicians our Past Chair Al Rizzo, MD and the American Thoracic Society 

President Patricia Finn MD 

http://www.buckslocalnews.com/articles/2014/02/19/opinion/doc530508144117a843927576.txt

NOTE new email Paul.Billings@Lung.org 

Paul G. Billings 

Senior Vice President, Advocacy & Education 

American Lung Association 

1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20004-1725 

Phone: 202-785-3355 x 3988 

Fax: 202 -452-1805