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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,465,021
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,465,021
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,465,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,209
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,239,543
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,154,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,465,021
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               192,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,575
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15862-15863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06821]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0325]


Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information 
Collection Request: The Impact of Driver Compensation on Commercial 
Motor Vehicle Safety; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA published a document in the Federal Register of 
February 4, 2015, concerning a request for comments on new information 
collection burdens titled, ``The Impact

[[Page 15863]]

of Driver Compensation on Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety,'' to assess 
the current compensation practices of commercial vehicle drivers and 
the potential influence this may have on safe commercial vehicle 
operations. The document contained incorrect estimated times per 
response and estimated total annual burdens.

DATES: Comments are due April 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Theresa Hallquist, Telephone: 202-
366-1064; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#483c202d3a2d3b296620292424393d213b3c082c273c662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e1a060b1c0b1d0f40060f02021f1b071d1a2e0a011a40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.

Correction

    1. In the Federal Register of February 4, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-
02136, on page 6159, in the second column, correct the ``Estimated Time 
Per Response'' paragraph to read:
    Estimated Time per Response: Minimum response = 0.35; Maximum 
response = 1.18 hours.
    2. In the Federal Register of February 4, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-
02136, on page 6159, in the third column, correct the ``Estimated Total 
Annual Burden'' paragraph to read:
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,611 hours (Group 1 is defined as 
very small and small carriers and Group 2 is defined as medium and 
large carriers. (1164 Group 1 respondents x 0.35 hour = 407 hours) + 
(1020 Group 2 respondents x 1.18 hours = 1,204 hours)).

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: March 13, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-06821 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, James H. Kelly, certify that:

      1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on Form  10-QSB of Stem Cell
Innovations, Inc.;

      2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not  contain any
untrue  statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary
to make the  statements  made,  in light of the  circumstances  under which such
statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls
and  procedures  (as  defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

            a) designed such  disclosure  controls and procedures to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            b)  evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's  disclosure
controls and  procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c)  presented in this  quarterly  report our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

      I have disclosed,  based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's  board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

            a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the  design  or  operation  of
internal  controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

            b. any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and

      6. I have  indicated in this  quarterly  report  whether or not there were
significant  changes  in  internal  controls  or in  other  factors  that  could
significantly  affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation,   including  any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to  significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 14, 2007

                                             /s/ Dr. James H. Kelly
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1


               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
listed below, of our report dated February 7, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of IMRglobal Corp. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


        o  Form S-3 No. 333-86823
        o  Form S-3 No. 333-91983
        o  Form S-8 No. 333-24027, pertaining to the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan
        o  Form S-8 No. 333-87095, pertaining to the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan
        o  Form S-8 No. 333-86753, pertaining to the 1999 Stock Employees
           Incentive Plan

                                     Ernst & Young LLP


Tampa, Florida
March 28, 2000
#### Paljo Saljanin, Respondent, v Gjellosh Dedvukaj, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 913]

In an action to recover the proceeds of a loan, the defendant appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered July 31, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $83,300, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered April 9, 2002, as denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

Pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2), a party may be excused from a judgment on the ground of “newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a different result and which could not have been discovered in time *372to move for a new trial under section 4404.” Here, however, the defendant failed to prove that the checks at issue could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence *(see Structural Concrete Corp. v Campbell Assoc. Corp.,*224 AD2d 516, 517 [1996]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the judgment.

The Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff prejudgment interest *(see*CPLR 5003; *155 Henry Owners Corp. v Lovlyn Realty Co.,*231 AD2d 559 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: R. T. Hardge v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00815-CR

Trial court case number: 1223224

Trial court: 180th District Court of Harris County

Proceeding pro se, appellant, R.T. Hardge, filed a notice of appeal of the trial 

court’s order regarding post-conviction DNA testing. On October 26, 2016, the district 

clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record that includes the trial court’s order, appointing 

Leah M. Borg to represent appellant on appeal. On November 8, 2016, we reinstated the 

case on the Court’s active docket.

The clerk’s record was filed in this appeal on October 16, 2015. On November 15, 

2016, the court reporter filed an information sheet indicating that there is no reporter’s 

record in the post-conviction DNA testing proceeding. And, the reporter’s record of the 

March 31, 2016 abatement hearing indicates that there was not a hearing on the motion 

for DNA testing. Accordingly, appellant’s brief is due to be filed within 30 days of the 

date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually 

Date: November 22, 2016
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RICHARD GRICE,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D16-3466

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

Petition for Belated Appeal

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Richard Grice, Panama City, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General 

Tallahassee, and, Kaylee Tatman,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the July 15, 2016 order 

denying Petitioner’s pro se motion for post-conviction relief filed in Case No. 2011-

034946-CFAES, in the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County, Florida. See Fla. R. 

App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED.

COHEN, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIDIA G. BISTRIKA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, a private Washington 

corporation licensed to do business in 

Oregon,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-35197

D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06158-TC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted November 16, 2016***

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Lidia G. Bistrika appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-35197 

motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel in her 

employment discrimination action brought under state law. We dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged order is not immediately appealable. 

See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106-07, 113 (2009)

(discussing collateral order doctrine, and reiterating “that the class of collaterally 

appealable orders must remain narrow and selective in its membership”); Wilborn 

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding an order 

denying the request for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 not 

immediately appealable).

DISMISSED.
# C_2015269EN.01000202.xml

| 15.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7699 — CVC/Stage Entertainment)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 269/04)

On 6 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7699. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7699. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HOMECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,519,019
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,118,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                   150,557
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,523,374
<PP&E>                                         680,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,195,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,120,483
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           295
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,984,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,195,718
<SALES>                                         17,003
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,617,574
<CGS>                                            9,564
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  704,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,126,209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                45,129
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,291,798)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,291,798)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,291,798)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.57)


</TABLE>
* 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. 98-10087

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES WILLIE DUKE, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN GAUGE et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-2745-BD

- - - - - - - - - -

January 13, 1999

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Willie Duke, III (Duke), federal prisoner #24193-077,

appeals the dismissal with prejudice of a claim filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Duke asserted numerous civil rights

violations, on appeal he only raises two issues: 1) the district

court should have appointed counsel to represent him; and 2) the

district court abused its discretion by denying Duke’s request

for a continuance.

First, Duke argues that the magistrate judge should have 
No. 98-10087

-2-

appointed counsel because of the “severity of the complaint,” his

inability to gain access to the law library, and his lack of

knowledge regarding the law. Duke initially filed a motion for

appointment of counsel, but then filed a motion requesting the

withdrawal of the motion for appointment of counsel. There is no

indication that Duke renewed his request for the appointment of

counsel at the trial. Given this, the magistrate judge did not 

err by not appointing counsel. Indigents are not generally

entitled to the appointment of counsel in § 1983 cases, and Duke

has not demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances

requiring the appointment of counsel. See Jackson v. Dallas

Police Dept., 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).

Next, Duke argues that the magistrate judge abused his

discretion by not granting a continuance. See Johnston v. Harris

County Flood Control Dist., 869 F.2d 1565, 1570 (5th Cir.

1989)(holding that this court reviews a denial of a motion for

continuance for abuse of discretion). As the magistrate judge

determined in his order dated December 5, 1997, Duke had ample

time to prepare his case. Moreover, Duke has failed to establish

that he was seriously prejudiced by the magistrate judge’s

decision. See United States v. Castro, 15 F.3d 417, 423 (5th

Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d

1070, 1074 (5th Cir. 1993)(explaining that trial judges are

granted broad discretion in ruling on motions for continuance).

Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s order dismissing Duke’s

case with prejudice is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 23, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-2139

Lower Tribunal No. 15-1668

________________

Publix Super Markets, Inc.,

Appellant,

vs.

Juan Lucas Alvarez, as Personal Representative

of the Estate and Survivors of Melvi Bayola Gonzalez, deceased,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Monica Gordo, Judge.

Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes, Adam

A. Schwartzbaum and Alicia H. Welch, for appellant.

Juan Lucas Alvarez; Joel S. Perwin, for appellee.

Before, SHEPHERD, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant Publix Super Markets, Inc.’s Motion to

Transfer Venue for forum non conveniens without prejudice to raise the issue of

venue before the trial court at a later time as discovery develops. 

Affirmed.