alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BERNARD WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1722

[September 22, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence Michael 

Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 561991CF001275B.

Bernard Williams, Bowling Green, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2015405EN.01000302.xml

| 5.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 405/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 405/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7749 — BMW/BMW Intec/Viessmann/DES)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 405/03)

On 30 November 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 German 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 32015M7749. 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 32015M7749. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.16


                       Executive Officers who are Parties
                    to a Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Number of Shares of Mariner
                                               Holdings, Inc. Common Stock
         Executive Officer                Subject to Stock Option Agreement
         -----------------                -------------------------------
        <S>                                           <C>
         Richard R. Clark                             8,994
         James M. Fitzpatrick III                     3,925
         Robert E. Henderson                         14,885
         W. Hunt Hodge                                1,115
         Frank A. Pici                                1,090
         Clinton D. Smith                             3,925
         Michael W. Strickler                         8,994
</TABLE>
13 CA ADC § 2269 Page 1

13 CCR s 2269

Cal. Admin. Code tit. 13, s 2269

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF 

REGULATIONS

TITLE 13. MOTOR VEHICLES

DIVISION 3. AIR RESOURCES BOARD

CHAPTER 5. STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE FUELS

ARTICLE 1. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE

SUBARTICLE 2. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE 

SOLD BEGINNING MARCH 1, 1996

This database is current through 12/26/2003, Register 

2003, No. 52.

s 2269. Submittal of Compliance Plans.

(a) Each producer shall, by September 1, 2000, submit to 

the executive officer a plan showing the producer's schedule for achieving compliance with the CaRFG Phase 3 

standards set forth in this subarticle. Each producer shall, 

by September 1, 2001, September 1, 2002, and September 

1, 2003 submit an update of the plan. Each compliance 

plan and update shall include the projected sequence and 

dates of all key events pertaining to planning, financing, 

and construction of necessary refinery modifications.

<General Materials (GM) - References, Annotations, or 

Tables>

Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 43013, 

43013.1, 43018 and 43101, Health and Safety Code; 

andWestern Oil and Gas Ass'n. v.Orange County Air 

Pollution Control District, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 

249 (1975). Reference: Sections 39000, 39001, 39002, 

39003, 39010, 39500, 39515, 39516, 41511, 43000, 

43013.1, 43016, 43018 and 43101, Health and Safety 

Code; andWestern Oil and Gas Ass'n. v.Orange County 

Air Pollution Control District, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. 

Rptr. 249 (1975). 

HISTORY 

1. New section filed 11-16-92; operative 12-16-92 (Register 92, No. 47).

2. Amendment of section and Note filed 8-3-2000; operative 9-2-2000 (Register

2000, No. 31).

3. Amendment filed 12-24-2002; operative 12-24-2002 pursuant to Goverment Code

section 11343.4 (Register 2002, No. 52).

13 CA ADC s 2269

END OF DOCUMENT
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 286 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 286

 To conduct or support further comprehensive research for the creation 
                  of a universal coronavirus vaccine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2021

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To conduct or support further comprehensive research for the creation 
                  of a universal coronavirus vaccine.

    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 ``Coronavirus Vaccine Act''.

SEC. 2. RESEARCH FOR THE CREATION OF A UNIVERSAL CORONAVIRUS VACCINE.

    (a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases shall conduct or support comprehensive research 
for the creation of a universal coronavirus vaccine.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this section, 
there are authorized to be appropriated $250,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2021 through 2024.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
99.02





Sangui
BioTech International , Inc.


1393
North Bennett Circle


Farmington,
Utah 84025




c/o
Sangui BioTech Gmbh


Alfred-Herrhausen-Str.
44


58455
Witten










Sangui
shareholders elect directors, authorize capital
  Witten,
Germany, December 19, 2008 - The general meeting of shareholders of Sangui
BioTech International, Inc., has resolved upon the proposals as submitted by the
board of directors. Participating were 50.7% of the total of 50,000,000 shares
issued and outstanding. The meeting which had taken place on November 18, 2008
had been adjourned to December 16, 2008 in order to permit additional
shareholders to submit their votes.
  The Board
of Directors now consists of Joachim Fleing, Hubertus Schmelz and Thomas
Striepe. Over 97% of votes were cast in favor of these nominees. The amended and
restated Articles of Incorporation of the company were approved by 71.4% of
votes. The remaining proposals all obtained a majority of above 70% and are
thereby approved and ratified.




SanguiBioTech
GmbH is a subsidiary of Sangui Biotech International, Inc.


(www.pinksheets.com:
SGBI)




For more
information please contact:




Joachim
Fleing


Phone:
+49 (160) 741 27 17


Fax: +49
(2302) 915 191


e-mail:
fleing@sangui.de




Forward
Looking Statements




Some of
the statements contained in this news release discuss future expectations,
contain projections of results of operation or financial condition or state
other “forward-looking” information. These statements are subject to known and
unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause the actual
results to differ materially from those contemplated by the statements. The
forward-looking information is based on various factors and is derived using
numerous assumptions. Important factors that may cause actual results to differ
from projections include, among many others, the ability of the Company to raise
sufficient capital to meet operating requirements. Words such as “anticipates,”
“expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” and variations
of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such
forward-looking statements. Unless required by law, the Company undertakes no
obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a
result of new information, future events or
otherwise.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSE LOPEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-3120 

(D.C. No. 2:07-CR-20122-KHV-2) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Defendant Jose Lopez appeals the dismissal by the United States District Court for 

the District of Kansas of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

On April 8, 2009, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 

500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court adopted his presentence 

report (PSR), which stated that he had been apprehended with 10.62 kilograms of actual 

methamphetamine. Under the 2009 Sentencing Guidelines the threshold weight of actual 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 

that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted 

without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under 

the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, 

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 

32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 30, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
 2 

methamphetamine required to reach the maximum base offense level of 38 was 1.5 

kilograms. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2009). The district court set that offense level and 

sentenced Defendant to 405 months in prison. 

Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines raised to 4.5 

kilograms the threshold weight of actual methamphetamine needed to reach the 

maximum base offense level of 38, see USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014); and Amendment 788 

made that change retroactive. Defendant moved for a sentence reduction under those 

amendments. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Defendant’s 

offense level remained the same under the amended guidelines. 

The dismissal was correct. Amendment 782 “did not lower [Defendant’s] 

sentencing range because his [2009] conviction involved too much [actual 

methamphetamine] for him to qualify for relief.” United States v. Gay, 771 F.3d 681, 

683 (10th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Pace, 650 F. App’x 940, 943 (10th Cir. 

2016) (denying reduction when sentencing court determined that defendant was 

responsible for sufficient drug quantity that guidelines amendment did not reduce offense 

level (and hence did not reduce his guidelines sentencing range)). Because Defendant’s 

sentencing range was not lowered by Amendment 782, he is not entitled to relief. 

 We AFFIRM. Mr. Lopez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 16.1February 2, 2005Securities and Exchange CommissionMail Stop 11-3450 5th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C.   20549

Dear Sirs/Madams:

We have read Item 4.01 of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.'s Form 8-K dated January 27, 2005, and have the following comments:

- We agree with the statements made in the second sentence of the first paragraph and those in the second, third and fourth paragraphs.
- We have no basis upon which to agree or disagree with the statements made in the first sentence of the first paragraph and those in the fifth paragraph.

		

Yours truly,

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to South Sudan

On April 3, 2014, by Executive Order 13664, I declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in and in relation to South Sudan, which has been marked by activities that threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan and the surrounding region, including widespread violence and atrocities, human rights abuses, recruitment and use of child soldiers, attacks on peacekeepers, and obstruction of humanitarian operations.

The situation in and in relation to South Sudan continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on April 3, 2014, to deal with that threat must continue in effect beyond April 3, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13664.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2015-07786

Billing code 3295-F5
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Xianping Wang, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting as Interim Chief Financial Officer of Xinhua China LTD., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Xinhua China LTD. for the period ended March 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Xinhua China LTD.





Date: May 19, 2011





/s/   "Xianping Wang"Xianping Wang

President, Chief Executive Officer





/s/   "Xianping Wang"Xianping Wang

Acting as Interim Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Xinhua China LTD. and will be retained by Xinhua China LTD. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
the consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of income filed as
part of the  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q and is  qualified in its entireby by
reference to such quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000853102
<NAME>                                         Day Runner, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                          9,690
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  52,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,681
<INVENTORY>                                    38,878
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              106,838
<PP&E>                                         46,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                 30,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                209,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          51,225
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           14
<OTHER-SE>                                     67,925
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  209,865
<SALES>                                       109,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              109,336
<CGS>                                          57,430
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  57,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               48,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (369)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,093)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)




</TABLE>
#### State ex rel. Pfeiffer vs. Taylor, Judge &c.

A. circuit judge at chambers has power to make an order for a stay of proceedings under a previous order appointing a receiver &c., made by the circuit court.

*É.mda,77t/u$*will not lie to compel a circuit judge to vacate an order. That writ can* not be made to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error.

APPLICATION for a *Mandamus.*

*By the*Court,

Downer, J.

This is an application for a rule to show cause why a writ of *mandamus*should not issue to the judge of the fourth judicial circuit, commanding him to vacate an order made by him at chambers in the case of *Pfeiffer against The Fond du Lac Rail Road Company,*staying proceedings under a.previous order made in the same case by the circuit court of Sheboygan county appointing a receiver of the property of *567the railroad corporation. Due notice of the motion to stay proceedings was given. The defendant had previously appealed from the order appointing a receiver, to this ■ court, and given the usual undertaking to pay costs and damages; and was required as a condition of a stay of proceedings to give another bond or undertaking to pay the judgment mentioned in the order appealed from. The circuit j udge clearly had the power to make the order to stay proceedings, at chambers. Sec. 29, ch. 140, R. S.; Laws of 1860, ch. 264, sec. 18. Nor has he in any way abused the power given to him, hut has amply protected the judgment creditor against loss by requiring ample security to pay the j udgment if the order appealed from shall be affirmed. But if the order staying proceedings had been wrongly or erroneously made, the remedy is not by *mandamus.*That writ cannot be made to perform the office or take the place of a writ of error or appeal.

The motion is denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
> 
> (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
> 
> (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.

|By:    | Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation                            
|------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|       | General Partner                                                      
|       |                                                                      
|       | /S/ Kelly Tucek____________________________________                  
|       |                                                                      
|Name:  | Kelly Tucek                                                          
|Title: | Vice President of the General Partner and                            
|       | principal financial officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.
|Date:  | November 12, 2004
EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.
333-32201, 333-32203, 333-20907, 333-20905, 333-63895, 333-72237, and 333-91493
on Forms S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-40065 on Form S-4, and Registration
Statement Nos. 333-72643 and 333-50249 on Forms S-3 of our reports dated
February 2, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of AmerUs Life
Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows and related schedules for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, which appears in the December 31, 1999 annual
report on Form 10-K of AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc.



                                            KPMG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
March 8, 2000
**Exhibit 24.6**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E.Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and eachof them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitutionand resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on hisbehalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell CrowCompany, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), the Corporation’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, and to sign anyor all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities andExchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of themwith or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each andevery act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about thepremises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do inperson, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-factor their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done byvirtue hereof.

 

 
|   | /s/ WILLIAM  F. CONCANNON |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | William  F. Concannon     |   |

 

----