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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFRENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001022657
<NAME> AETNA

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                              23
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                       359
<INVENTORY>                                     18,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,035
<PP&E>                                          92,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,523
<BONDS>                                         85,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,886)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,069
<SALES>                                        205,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,741
<CGS>                                          181,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,602
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,460)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,099)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,361)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,361)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 02, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 02, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0084. ADAM WESLEY KIMBRELL v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CR148
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT IN THE INTEREST OF: C.A.Y., A MINOR

PETITION OF: R.Y., FATHER : : : : : : : : No. 51 EAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 27th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2016

No. 04-16-00679-CV

John M. DONOHUE,

Appellant

v.

William MCMANUS, Perla Dominguez and Kevin Nakata,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CI12457

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant, who is pro se on appeal, has filed a motion asking for an extension of time to 

file his appellant’s brief, which is currently due December 15, 2016. As reason for the extension, 

appellant advises he requested a copy of the appellate record, but has not received it. We have 

reviewed appellant’s filings in this court and find he has not requested a copy of the appellate 

record. However, we will interpret his request for an extension of time based his lack of access 

to the appellate record as a request for same. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the clerk of this court to copy and send to appellant a copy of 

the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record in this matter. We GRANT appellant’s motion for 

extension of time to file his brief and ORDER appellant to file his brief in this court on or before 

January 23, 2017. 

We order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on appellant and all counsel. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CANDLEWOOD HOTEL COMPANY, INC.

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-39219) of Candlewood Hotel Company, Inc., of our report dated
February 14, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Candlewood Hotel Company, Inc., included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
July 24, 1998
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4636



#  S AHARA S IMON , a/k/a Soukee, a/k/a Juliet, Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.

(CR-01-60-2-8) Submitted: February 25, 2002 Decided: March 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Sahara Simon appeals her conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty plea to distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal,but suggests on Simon’s behalf that the district court erred in determining her sentence. Simon has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, although she was informed of her right to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.Simon contends the district court erred in sentencing her to thirtyseven months of imprisonment. However, because Simon’s sentence was within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range and less than the statutory maximum sentence, it is not reviewable. See United States v. Porter , 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).
Pursuant to Anders , we have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Simon’s conviction and sentence. This courtrequires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that acopy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. S IMON
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

**We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-116543 and 333-130128) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-56996,333-96825 and 333-110905) of deCODE genetics, Inc. of ourreport dated February 27, 2004, except for the fourth paragraph of the sectiontitled “Mortgage Loans” in footnote 11  for which the date is March 15, 2004,relating to the consolidated financial statements for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected FinancialData” in this Form 10-K.**

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Boston, MassachusettsMarch 15, 2006

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.85

[LOGO OF CROSSBEAM.COM]
  web site development


www.crossbeam.com


Letter of Agreement
================================================================================

May 11, 2001

To:      James C Cassina/Investorlinks.com Inc.
From:    Elizabeth J. Kirkwood/Crossbeam.com
Subject: Letter of Agreement for web site services


This letter outlines our agreement to undertake the deconstruction and
maintenance of www.investorlinks.com.
               ---------------------

1. Services
   --------

Carry out an overhaul of the site by eliminating the following sections: Tools,
Register with InvestorLinks, Commentaries, Free Newsletters, Top Site Winners
and Traders Bookstore.

Approach Stockhouse Media regarding continuing the private label Bullboards and
Portfolio Tracker, as well as the stock Quotes.

Negotiate the termination of the services agreement between Stockhouse Media and
Investorlinks.com with the objective of maintaining the current service at no
cost to Investorlinks.

Communicate with current advertisers with a view to maintain a relationship
during overhaul of site.

2. Fees
   ----

   Investorlinks agrees to pay Crossbeam as follows:

          Website Deconstruction:       $4,000.00

          Maintenance:                  $2,000.00 per month

                                                                               1
<PAGE>

3. Terms of Payment
   ----------------

   An initial payment of $5,134 is due upon the signing of this contract. This
   represents the deconstruction fee and a pro rated (20/31sts) of the first
   months maintenance fee.

   Monthly invoices will be rendered at the first of each month during the
   contract.


4. Approval
   --------

   Any additional elements and fees not outlined in this contract will be
   submitted to Investorlinks.com Inc. for approval in writing before work is
   undertaken.


5. Duration of Agreement
   ---------------------

   Projects covered under this agreement will be undertaken over a six month
   period commencing May 11, 2001 and terminating November 30, 2001. Subject to
   paragraph 6, the Agreement shall automatically be renewed for additional six
   month terms.


6. Cancellation
   ------------

   Both Investorlinks.com. and Crossbeam.com have the right to cancel this
   agreement upon thirty days notice.


7. Server Access and Co-operation
   ------------------------------

   Investorlinks.com will provide Crossbeam all of the information access
   required for it to access the servers located in Charlottesville, Virginia.
   Investorlinks.com will also request the co-operation of the personnel in
   Charlottesville in the turnover of the site and the relocation of any
   computers, or otherwise from the corporate officers to the server location.


________________________                     _________________________
Crossbeam Limited                            Investorlinks.com Inc.
Elizabeth J. Kirkwood                        James C. Cassina

                                                                               2
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 24-7


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, William P.
Leiser and J. Christopher Kirk and each of them, his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000, and to sign any or all amendments to
such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or
without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises,
as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or
their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.


                                        /s/ George L. Lippe
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        George L. Lippe
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-66374) and S-8 (No. 333-56996) of deCODE
genetics, Inc. ("deCODE") of our report dated March 8, 2002 relating to the
consolidated financial statements, which appear in deCODE's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001. We also consent to the
references to us under the headings "Experts" in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 and Form S-8 and under "Selected Financial Data" in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3.

PricewaterhouseCoopers ehf

Reykjavik, Iceland
March 27, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCUS PLATER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR99-559, CA-01-1489)

Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Plater, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Plater seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. To the extent that Plater challenges

the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b) (West 1999 & Supp.

2001), this claim fails as we have upheld the constitutionality of

§ 841(b). United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228 (4th Cir.

2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Plater, Nos. CR-99-559; CA-01-1489 (D. Md. Jan. 18,

2002). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50370

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

JOSE DOLORES AMBRIZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-2069-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ambriz-Rodriguez pleaded guilty of illegal reentry after removal in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced, within the applicable guideline 

range, to forty-six months of imprisonment. He challenges the substantive 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50370 Document: 00513779952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
No. 16-50370

2

reasonableness of the sentence, claiming that it is greater than necessary to 

achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence within 

the guidelines is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United 

States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that 

should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or 

improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Id. As Ambriz-Rodriguez concedes, his theory that the presumption should not apply is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,

564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009).

We have repeatedly rejected arguments that a sentence is unreasonable 

because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not based on empirical data or effectively doublecounts prior offenses. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529–31 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Although Section 2L1.2 was recently amended, Ambriz-Rodriguez 

has not shown that the district court erred by applying the version of the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing. See United States v. Kimler, 167 F.3d 

889, 893 (5th Cir. 1999); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a). Finally, the record reflects that 

the court heard and considered Ambriz-Rodriguez’s contentions regarding his 

history and characteristics, the need for deterrence, and his benign motive for 

reentry; his repetition of those arguments on appeal amounts to only a disagreement with the sentence and fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010); United 

States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50370 Document: 00513779952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
Crop Production

Executive Summary

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

May 12, 2020
Data Sources

May 12, 2020

May 2020 Ag Yield
United States Winter Wheat Condition

Percent Rated Good to Excellent

May 12, 2020

Percent
May 2020 Winter Wheat

Acreage, Yield, and Production

May 12, 2020
May 2020 Winter Wheat Acres

United States

May 12, 2020

Million Acres
May 2020 Winter Wheat Harvested Area

Thousand Acres and Percent Change from Previous Year

May 12, 2020
May 2020 Winter Wheat Yield

United States

May 12, 2020

Bushels per Acre
May 2020 Winter Wheat Yield

Bushels and Percent Change from Previous Year

May 12, 2020
May 2020 Winter Wheat Production

United States

May 12, 2020

Billion Bushels
2020 U.S. Winter Wheat Production

Industry Expectations vs NASS

May 12, 2020
May 2020 Hay Stocks

United States

May 12, 2020

May 2020 Hay Stocks

United States
May 2020 Hay Stocks

Thousand Tons and Percent Change from Previous Year

May 12, 2020
May 12, 2020

May 2020 Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts

Production
Data Sources

Florida Citrus

May 12, 2020
May 2020 Citrus

Utilized Production

May 12, 2020
2019 Corn

Acreage, Yield, and Production

May 12, 2020
December 2019 Corn

Stocks

May 12, 2020
2019 Soybeans

Acreage, Yield, and Production

May 12, 2020
December 2019 Soybeans

Stocks

May 12, 2020
2019 All Cotton

Acreage, Yield, and Production

May 12, 2020
Upcoming Reports

May 12, 2020

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/index.php
#StatChat

May 12, 2020
All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

202-720-2127

800-727-9540

nass@usda.gov
Exhibit
10.4.2


 


AMENDMENT
TO MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


Reference
is made to the Management Services Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Agreement”; capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement), dated as of May 12, 2018, by and between PAVmed Inc., a Delaware
corporation (“PAVmed”) and Lucid Diagnostics Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Customer”).


 


WHEREAS,
as set forth in Section 3(b) of the Agreement, the parties have considered in good faith an adjustment to the Service Fee and hereby
wish to amend the Agreement to reflect such adjustment as set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and adequacy of which are herby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.
Amendment. The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “$20,000” with “$60,000”.


 


2.
Terms of Agreement. Except as expressly set forth in this amendment, the terms of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of March 1 2019.


 


	AGREED
    AND ACCEPTED BY:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	PAVmed
    Inc.	 	Lucid
    Diagnostics Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Lishan Aklog, MD	 	 	/s/
    Lishan Aklog, MD
	Name:	Lishan
    Aklog, MD	 	Name:	Lishan
    Aklog, MD
	Title:	Chairman
    & CEO	 	Title:	Executive
    Chairman
AFS-12-512-E 

October 12, 2012 

 Exemption No. 8842C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26746 

Mr. David L. Jones 

Corporate Aviation Education Director 

Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

4455 South Boulevard 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8842, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Technical Education Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

(Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate Q5VT572K) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 8842, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general 

written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general 

curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

regarding public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8842, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8842, as amended, to 

February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8842 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8842. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service