alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.  20549



FORM 8-K



CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report: February 3, 2005
(Date of earliest event reported)





Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.(Exact name of registrant as specified in the charter)





|Delaware                                       | 0-19220               | 36-3664407                       
|---------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | ---------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (Commission File No.) | (IRS Employer Identification No.)

2901 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)





(630) 218-8000
(Registrant's telephone number including area code)





Not Applicable
Former name or former address, if changed since last report)



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):

[ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

[ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

---

Item 9.01  Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(c)  Exhibits

|Exhibit | Description                                                               
|------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|        |                                                                           
|16.1    | Letter of Deloitte & Touche LLP regarding change in certifying accountant.



---

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.
(Registrant)





|By:   | /s/ Kelly Tucek                                                                                                
|----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |                                                                                                                
|      | Kelly Tucek                                                                                                    
|      | Vice President of the General Partner and principal financial officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.
|      |                                                                                                                
|Date: | February 3, 2005
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0086. DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CHAYKA BETTIS

et al.

DeKalb County School District (“DCSD”) has filed a motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s October 12, 2016 order dismissing its application for

discretionary review. DCSD’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, our order

dismissing its application is VACATED, and the application is REINSTATED.

Upon review of the merits, however, the application is DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

11/29/2016

November 29, 2016
EX-4.35



 Exhibit 4.35 
 EQUITY INTEREST TRANSFER AGREEMENT 
 This transfer agreement (the
“Agreement”) is made and entered into on February 13, 2012 (the “Effective Date”) in Shanghai by and between the following two parties: 
 Transferor (the “Party A”): Shanghai Zhengduo Information Technology Co., Ltd 

Registered Place of Business: Room 1006, No.165, Caoxi Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

Transferee (the “Party B”): Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd 
 Registered Place of Business: Room 708, Building No.29, No. 396, Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the registered capital of Shanghai Juhe Network Technology Co.,
Ltd. (the “Target Company”) is 1.5 million RMB, among which 0.765 million RMB was contributed by Party A that accounts for 51% of the entire registered capital. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of relevant laws and regulations of the People’s Republic of China, and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth based on the principles of
equity, good faith, open, fair and impartial, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.	SUBJECT MATTER AND PRICE 

  

	1.1	Party A agree to transfer the 51% equity interest it held in the Target Company to Party B for the price of 0.765 million RMB. 


 

	1.2	Other interest collateral to the equity interest shall be transferred with the equity interest. 


 

	1.3	The Transferee should pay off the entire purchase price of the equity interest to the Transferor within five days from the date of signing of this Agreement.


  

	2.	PROMISES AND WARRANTIES 


Party A promises that the equity interest it transferred to Party B under Article 1 of this Agreement was legally owned by it, and Party A
has completed and effectual right of disposition on the equity interest. Party A also ensures that there are no mortgages, other rights of security or third-party right of recourse on the transferred equity interest. 

  
 1 









	3.	LIABILITIES FOR BREACH 


The defaulting party shall reimburse the damages of the other party. 

 

	4.	RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES 


This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the People’s Republic of China. 

If any dispute shall arise in connection with this Agreement, the parties may solve the disputes by good faith negotiations. If the
dispute cannot be resolved through good faith negotiations, either party may submit the dispute to be resolved by the People’s Court of Shanghai Xuhui District. 
  

	5.	MISCELLANEOUS 

  

	5.1.	This Agreement is made in four counterparts. Each party of this Agreement has one counterpart and the Target Company holds two counterparts that shall be used during
relevant procedures. 

  

	5.2.	This Agreement shall take effect upon seal by both parties. 

  

			
	 PARTY A (SEAL): SHANGHAI ZHENGDUO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

		
	DATE:	 	
	
	 PARTY B (SEAL): SHANGHAI GIANT NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

		
	DATE:	 	


  
 2
* 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

March 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11245

Summary Calendar

 

GREGG WILLIAM PAULSON, Sergeant,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

B.B. BELL, Lieutenant General or 

Successor, United States Army,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CV-135-C

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

Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Gregg William Paulson, Texas prisoner # 825838 appeals

the dismissal as frivolous of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition,

challenging his state custody on the ground that he is a prisoner

of war and is being denied his rights under the Geneva

Convention. This court must examine the basis of its

jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby,

813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal
No. 03-11245

-2-

is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. 

United States v. Carr, 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir. 1992). Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires that the notice

of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of

the judgment or order from which appeal is taken. 

Paulson did not file his notice of appeal within 30 days of

the entry of the district court’s July 17, 2003, dismissal order. 

Instead, his notice of appeal was filed in excess of four months

later, on November 19, 2003, at the earliest. The November 19

notice of appeal was timely as to the district court’s denial of

Paulson’s postjudgment “Motion for a Full and Fair Hearing To

Determine Facts in Dispute” only. However, Paulson briefs no

argument regarding the denial of that motion, devoting his brief

instead to the merits of his case and to the propriety of the

district court’s dismissal of his petition. By failing to brief

any argument regarding the denial of his motion for a full and

fair hearing, Paulson has abandoned the sole available ground for

appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993); see also FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The appeal is

therefore DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
Meadowbrook  Rehabilitation Group, Inc's quarterly report to stockholder for the
quarter  ended  September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                              2,979
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       6,444
<ALLOWANCES>                        (1,420)             
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    9,454
<PP&E>                              4,233
<DEPRECIATION>                     (2,103)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     13,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,981
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                           19
<OTHER-SE>                         8,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       13,421
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   11,505
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   12,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   217
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 32
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,111)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (1,111)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,128)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.58)
        

</TABLE>
#### ELVIRA F. SMITH, Respondent, *vs.*PATRICK LAVIN, Impleaded with JABEZ H. FOSTER, Appellant.

APPEAL PROM circuit COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY.

Where there is no hill of exceptions nor case settled in a cause, the court Trill presume that the finding of the court below was authorized by the evidence, especially as it is not excepted to; and that the judgment is correct.

The court will not review the finding of the facts in the court below, unless the party preserve the evidence by bill of exceptions or casé.

The case of *Bead vs. Wells,*7 Wis., 149, affirmed.

*Cross*& *Bullock*for appellant.

*Salomon*& *Streeter*for respondent.

*By the*Court,

Smith, J.

This was an ordinary suit of foreclosure. The printed case shows the complaint and answer, and testimony is also set out therein, together with the finding of *the*facts by the court below, and conclusions of law thereon. But there is no bill of exceptions, nor any case settled, nor anything to show that an exception was taken. Although some testimony is sent up with the papers, it does not purport to be all the evidence taken on the trial, nor indeed that such testimony was used. We must therefore presume that the finding of the court was authorized by the evidence; especially as it was not excepted to; and that the judgment thereon is correct. It would seem to be warranted by the facts found. We cannot review cases of this kind unless the parties preserve their evidence by bill of exceptions, •or case duly settled. (See *Head vs.*Wells, decided at this term.

Judgment affirmed with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7113

In Re: RICHARD CHEEKS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-3616-1)

Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Cheeks, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Cheeks petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an

order preventing the state court from considering his state habeas

petition and preventing the state prosecutor from further

participation in his case.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). This court

does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state

officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411

F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to

review state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). 

The relief sought by Cheeks is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TONY HOSLEY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1704

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 29, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Joseph Bulone, 

Judge.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and SMITH JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2623 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2623

 To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to modify requirements for a 
meat food product of cattle to bear a ``Product of U.S.A.'' label, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 5, 2021

  Mr. Rounds (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Booker, Mr. Daines, Mr. 
  Hagerty, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Lummis, and Mr. Thune) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to modify requirements for a 
meat food product of cattle to bear a ``Product of U.S.A.'' label, 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 ``U.S.A. Beef Act''.

SEC. 2. PRODUCT OF U.S.A. LABEL FOR BEEF.

    Section 7 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Product of the United States Label for Beef.--
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the label of 
        meat of cattle or a meat food product of cattle may bear the 
        phrase `Product of U.S.A.', or any substantially similar word 
        or phrase, only if the meat or meat food product is exclusively 
        derived from 1 or more cattle exclusively born, raised, and 
        slaughtered in the United States.
            ``(2) Inapplicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
        meat of cattle or a meat food product of cattle that is 
        intended and offered for export to a foreign country.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                            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 Quarterly Report of iVoice, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jerome R Mahoney,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     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.


          Date: November 14, 2007


          By /s/ Jerome R Mahoney
          ---------------------
          Jerome R Mahoney
          President, Chief Executive Officer
          and Principal Financial Officer
# 

To: Dave Lopez 

2015 

From: Drone Services Hawaii 

Subject: Authorization Letter 

September 10, 

This letter is to authorize George K. Purdy, of Drone Services Hawaii, 98-1827A Kaahumanu 

St., Aiea, Hi 96701, Cell phone (808)559-0175, Phone (808)225-2968, Fax (808)445-1954, 

online access for Dave Lopez section 333 exemption document Process. 

! 

Dave Lopez, Owner
Manufacturer Manufacturer 

Owned

Distributor

Independent 

Distributor

Contractor/Dealer

Subject to civil 

penalties based 

upon committing a 

prohibited act

Yes Yes No No

Can be labeled a 

routine violator

No No Yes Yes

Considered a 

manufacturer 

under definition

Yes Yes No No

Can remediate to 

get off routine 

violator list

N/A N/A Yes Yes

Right to appeal

finding of Routine 

Violation

N/A N/A Yes Yes

Record retention 60 months 60 months 54 months 48 months

Record retention 

start date

30 days after Final 

Rule

30 days after Final 

Rule

Nov. 30, 2015 30 days after Final 

Rule
EXHIBIT 21.1

List of Subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership

|Subsidiary                                                     |  | Jurisdiction  
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|The Retail Property Trust                                      |  | Massachusetts 
|Simon Property Group (Illinois), L.P.                          |  | Illinois      
|Simon Property Group (Texas), L.P.                             |  | Texas         
|Shopping Center Associates                                     |  | New York      
|DeBartolo Capital Partnership                                  |  | Delaware      
|Simon Capital Limited Partnership                              |  | Delaware      
|SDG Macerich Properties, L.P.                                  |  | Delaware      
|M.S. Management Associates, Inc.                               |  | Delaware      
|M.S. Management Associates (Indiana), Inc.                     |  | Indiana       
|DeBartolo Properties Management, Inc.                          |  | Ohio          
|Mayflower Realty LLC                                           |  | Delaware      
|Marigold Indemnity, Ltd.                                       |  | Bermuda       
|Rosewood Indemnity, Ltd.                                       |  | Bermuda       
|Simon Business Network, LLC                                    |  | Delaware      
|Simon Brand Ventures, LLC                                      |  | Delaware      
|Simon Global Limited                                           |  | United Kingdom
|Simon Services, Inc.                                           |  | Delaware      
|Simon Property Group Administrative Services Partnership, L.P. |  | Delaware      
|SPGGC, Inc.                                                    |  | Maryland      
|Kravco Simon Investments, L.P.                                 |  | Pennsylvania  
|Kravco Simon Company                                           |  | Pennsylvania  

Omits
names of subsidiaries which as of December 31, 2003 were not, in the aggregate, a "significant subsidiary".

107

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7216

ISAAC SHELDON BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-227-AM) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Sheldon Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Isaac Sheldon Brown ap peals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(2000). This court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court on procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and determine that Brown has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ACCEPTED 06-14-00147-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/30/2014 2:28:27 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK