alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|     |                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |

|      |                                                                                                                                                         |
|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |

|                                                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                    |  |
| /s/ Lisa A. Payne                                                                  | Date: February 28, 2012 |
| Lisa A. Payne                                                                      |   |
| Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, and Director (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2468 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2468

 To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to extend the 
    moratorium on drilling off the coasts of the States of Florida, 
          Georgia, and South Carolina, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2021

    Mr. Rubio (for himself and Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to extend the 
    moratorium on drilling off the coasts of the States of Florida, 
          Georgia, and South Carolina, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Shores Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING OFF THE COASTS OF THE STATES 
              OF FLORIDA, GEORGIA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA.

    Section 104 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 
U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-432) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 
                striking ``June 30, 2022'' and inserting ``June 30, 
                2032'';
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' after the 
                semicolon;
                    (C) in paragraph (3)(B)(iii), by striking the 
                period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
                    (D) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) any area in the South Atlantic Planning Area (as 
        designated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management as of the 
        date of enactment of this paragraph); or
            ``(5) any area in the Straits of Florida Planning Area (as 
        designated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management as of the 
        date of enactment of this paragraph).''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Effect on Certain Leases.--The moratoria under paragraphs (4) 
and (5) of subsection (a) shall not affect valid existing leases in 
effect on the date of enactment of this subsection.
    ``(e) Environmental Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
the Secretary may issue leases in areas described in that subsection 
for environmental conservation purposes, including the purposes of 
shore protection, beach nourishment and restoration, wetlands 
restoration, and habitat protection.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000352715
<NAME> BIOSONICS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,000
<INVENTORY>                                     65,080
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,875
<PP&E>                                         254,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                 233,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,056,947
<BONDS>                                        243,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,650
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,951,635)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,312
<SALES>                                         34,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,986
<CGS>                                           23,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  501,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               109,691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (598,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (598,912)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (598,912)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014098EN.01000201.xml

| 3.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 April 2014

2014/C 98/02

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3795 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,03 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4651 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82800 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9049 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2190 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2150 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,463 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,29 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1768 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4665 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9286 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4905 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5191 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7009 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6091 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7395 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 459,29 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,6459 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5568 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6503 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 578,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5176 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,904 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,6943 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,685 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1212 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,0183 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,5803 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3795

JPY

Japanese yen

143,03

DKK

Danish krone

7,4651

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82800

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9049

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2190

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2150

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,463

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,29

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1768

RON

Romanian leu

4,4665

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9286

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4905

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5191

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7009

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6091

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7395

KRW

South Korean won

1 459,29

ZAR

South African rand

14,6459

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5568

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6503

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 578,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5176

PHP

Philippine peso

61,904

RUB

Russian rouble

48,6943

THB

Thai baht

44,685

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1212

MXN

Mexican peso

18,0183

INR

Indian rupee

82,5803

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### M A N D A T E

TO THE 290TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 23, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Dillon C. Gonzales, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 15

- 00484

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2014CR2520A

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 23, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 21-3092

LUIS AMAURIS DIAZ ALMANZAR,

 Petitioner 

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Agency No. A058-293-120)

Present: AMBRO∗

, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

1. Motion by Respondent to Recall the Mandate;

2. Response by Petitioner to Respondent’s Motion to Recall the Mandate;

3. Respondent’s Petition for Panel Rehearing.

Respectfully,

Clerk/tmm

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion to recall the mandate is granted. In recognition of the fact that the 

Government did not have the opportunity to challenge the decision to make the opinion in 

this matter precedential, the Court will vacate the order of March 29, 2024 publishing the 

opinion and vacate the Precedential Opinion entered on that same date. The Clerk is 

directed to re-issue the Court’s original opinion as a Not Precedential Opinion as of the 

date of this order and immediately re-enter the mandate. The Government’s petition for 

panel rehearing is denied. 

By the Court,

s/ Cheryl Ann Krause

Circuit Judge

Dated: July 1, 2024

Tmm/cc: All Counsel of Record 

∗ Judge Ambro assumed senior status on February 6, 2023.
11/25/201 1 .110 4 FA X 202193514 2 FA A • ^ BU S 21001/00 2

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N NATIONA L TRANSPORTATIO N SAFErVJBOARD 5 A J| . ^ ^

WASHINGTON , D. C INTHHiUATTEROF : BRUNTLDAROS A Rcspoiide m FA A Docker No . [T o B e Assi^cJ I FDM S No . FAA-20U-066 9 Judg e J.E . Sulliva

n

NOTIC E O F SETTLEMENTAVITHPRAW.4J L O F COMPLAIN T Pursuant t o asettlemen t

reache db

y th e partie s andlo th e provision s o f 1 4 C.F.R . §13.215 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , b y counsel , hereb y withdraw s it s Complaint filedJun e 15 , 2011 . Respectfull y submitte dthi s _22 . da y o f November

, 2011 . ; 

# ' ^ m . ^ RVA N M . LANDER S Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regiona

l Counse l 

# RECEIVE D NO V 

### 2 3 20f 1 

# HEAR/N G DOCKE T11/25/201 1 ll:0 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^OM S 0002/00 2

CERTIFICAT E OK

SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Notic e o f

Settlement/Withdrawal o f Complain t

wa s sent : original an

don e cop y vi acertifie dmai l an dFedera l Expres s lo : Federa l Aviatio n Admimstratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Cleric , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Building-Suit e 2W100 0 on e cop y vi afacsimile , certifie dmail , an dFedera l txprcs s lo ; Th e Honorabl e J.E . Sulliva n Administrativ e La

w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo m£12-32 0 U.S . Department

o f Transportalio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Eas t Buildin g Groun dKloo

r WiishJngton . D C 2059 0 facsimile : (202 ) 366-753 6 on e cop y vi acertifie dmai l an dregula r mai l to : Brunild aRos a 208 4 Bronx Plac e Ea.s

t Apt . 5 J Bronx , N Y 1046 2

[. MCDOWEL L Le^i l A^fan t Offic/o f th e Regional Counse l

Date d
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 13, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1727

Lower Tribunal No. F08-17481B

________________

Kenneth Williams,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. 

Fernandez, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. Long v. State, 183 So. 3d 342, 345 (Fla. 2016) (adapting test 

announced in Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998) and Grosvenor v. 

State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2004) and applying same in the context of a 

plea, holding: “We likewise establish a similar two-prong test for determining 

postconviction claims for newly discovered evidence relating to guilty pleas 

which adopts the first prong of the Jones test and the second prong from 

Grosvenor. First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, 

the party, or counsel at the time of the plea, and it must appear that the 

defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of 

diligence. Second, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability 

that, but for the newly discovered evidence, the defendant would not have 

pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. “[I]n determining 

whether a reasonable probability exists that the defendant would have 

insisted on going to trial, a court should consider the totality of the 

circumstances surrounding the plea, including such factors as whether a 

particular defense was likely to succeed at trial, the colloquy between the 

defendant and the trial court at the time of the plea, and the difference 

between the sentence imposed under the plea and the maximum possible 

sentence the defendant faced at a trial.’”) (quoting Grosvenor, 874 So. 2d at 

1181-82). See also McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948, 954 n. 4 (Fla. 2002)
3

(comparing the standard of appellate review of a summary denial of a 3.850 

claim and the standard of appellate review of a denial of a 3.850 claim 

following an evidentiary hearing and noting that, in the latter, “the appellate 

court affords deference to the trial court's factual findings.”); Blanco v. State, 

702 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1997) (“In reviewing a trial court's application of 

the above law to a rule 3.850 motion following an evidentiary hearing, this 

Court applies the following standard of review: As long as the trial court's 

findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, ‘this Court will not 

substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise 

of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the 

evidence by the trial court.’”) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So. 2d 1074, 1075 

(Fla.1984)) (additional quotation omitted).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                          12,546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  147,438
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,905
<INVENTORY>                                     13,939
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,298
<PP&E>                                          70,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          229,180
<BONDS>                                        124,252
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                   (119,974)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,755
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               483,619
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  368,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               152,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (72,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (72,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (28,018)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (100,921)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.11


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW WINSTON ALLES; 

BERNADETTE ALOMA ALLES,

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-73315 

Agency Nos. A075-635-301 

A075-639-417

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 6, 2022**

Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Andrew Winston and Bernadette Aloma Alles, natives and citizens of Sri 

Lanka, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision 

denying their untimely and numerically barred motion to reopen their immigration 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 8 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them 

here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We review the denial of 

a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 

1203 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we 

deny the petition. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ third motion to 

reopen, in which they alleged changed country conditions in Sri Lanka. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To be entitled to reopening on that 

basis, Petitioners needed to produce material evidence that country conditions have 

changed, demonstrate that the evidence was not available during the prior hearings, 

and show that the new evidence—together with the evidence presented at the

original hearing—would establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Agonafer, 

859 F.3d at 1204.

The BIA adequately considered Petitioners’ evidence and reasonably 

concluded it did not demonstrate materially changed conditions in Sri Lanka. See

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990–91 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the

agency adequately considered evidence and “sufficiently announced its decision.”). 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioners had not satisfied 

the prerequisites to warrant reopening their immigration proceedings. Likewise, we 

find no legal or constitutional error in the BIA’s determination not to reopen the 
3 

proceedings sua sponte. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his 

court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for 

the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or 

constitutional error.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
CLEO PATRICE ROBY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2158

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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 of Brantley Capital Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tab A.
Keplinger, Chief Financial Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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/ Tab A. KeplingerTab A. Keplinger
|Chief Financial Officer             
|April 30, 2003                      

This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Brantley
Capital Corporation and will be retained by Brantley Capital Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Interest of Gabriela Angelica

Reyes, Miguel Reyes and Daisy J. 

Reyes, Children.,

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00085-CV

Appeal from

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2006CM6082)

O R D E R

It is ORDER of this Court that the Appellant’s brief received in this office on June 10, 

2022, not be filed. The same not being prepared in accordance with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, namely Rule 38.1(a), (b), (d), (f), (g), and (h). Specifically, the rules and 

this Court required record references within sections (d), (f), and (h). Therefore, the above

mentioned brief is being returned and a corrected brief shall be prepared and filed with this Court

on or before July 3, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before, Rodriguez C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.