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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,917
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,663
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,094
<INVENTORY>                                     79,674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,437
<PP&E>                                          71,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 613,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,699
<BONDS>                                        372,954
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           25,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   613,385
<SALES>                                        161,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,272
<CGS>                                          107,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,698
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   128
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,688
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,946
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,742
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6406

EUGENE PETER SCHULER
,

Petitioner

- Appellant
,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, VDOC
, Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. B r inkema , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv

- 01151

- LMB

- JFA )

Submitted : April 18 , 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER
, and THACKER , Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Eugene Peter Schuler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6406 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Eugene Peter Schuler appeals the district court’s order construing his motion for

rehearing as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it on

that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed

Schuler’s motion for rehearing as a successive § 225 4 petition over which it lacked

jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* To the extent that Schuler seeks to appeal the district court’s February 24, 2023, order construing Schuler’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition and dismissing it on that basis, Schuler’s notice of appeal is untime ly as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). USCA4 Appeal: 23-6406 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2009

l0420 

# Order

April 28, 2009

137885

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137885 COA: 288207 Macomb CC: 2 007-001213-FH JAMES LAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 26, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cases

of People v Idziak (Docket No. 137301) and People v Jackson (Docket No. 135888) are pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases may resolve issues raised in the presen t application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pe nding the decisions in those cases.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      AND**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Eugene Science, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jae
      Hong Yoo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule
      13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
      1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
                August 21, 2006
            /s/    Jae
                Hong YooJae
                Hong YooChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)
      under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall
      not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
#### Heinrich *v.*Heinrich.

Opinion delivered May 14, 1928.

*251*Harb*& *Barnard*and *Robert J. Brown, Jr.,*for appellant. .

*Watkins*& *Paste,*for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

Tlie only question presented by this appeal for determination is whether the chancery court of Pulaski County erred in divesting the title out of appellant and investing’ same in appellee to lot 8 of Schlatter’s subdivision to the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 22, township 2 north, range 12 west, Pulaski County, Arkansas, subject to a lien of $150 in favor of appellant as part of the purchase price paid by him for the lot.

The decree respecting the property was rendered in a divorce suit brought by appellee against appellant, in which appellee prevailed. The case rvas tried upon testimony taken *ore terms,*and it has not been brought into the record by bill of exceptions, so the review before this court must be limited to errors appearing* upon the face of the record. *Ft. Smith, S.*& *R. I. R. Co.*v. *Lovelady,*150 Ark. 508, 234 S. W. 634. The court found that appellant and appellee purchased the property under contract from the Bankers’ Trust Company, and that said contract of purchase was in the name of both appellant and appellee; that appellant paid $150, which was the initial payment at the time the purchase was made, and that the rest of the purchase money was paid by appellee. As the purchase money had been paid, this created an equitable estate in entirety by appellant and appellee. *Roach*v. *Richardson,*84 Ark. 47, 104 S. W. 538. An estate *252by entirety, either legal or equitable, cannot be divested ont of the husband and invested in the wife, or *vice versa,*by the courts. The right to the whole estate 'by the survivor prevents this. *Roulston*v. *Hall,*66 Ark. 305, 50 S. W. 690, 74 A. S. R. 97. Appellant contends, under the rules announced in the two cases cited, that the power and authority of the trial court was limited to making a division of the rents thereafter accruing from the property in question between appellant and appellee. This would be true with reference to any lands, not embraced in the homestead, but not as to homestead land.. There is nothing on the face of the record to show that the five-acre tract in question was not a homestead, so we must indulge the presumption that the testimony reflected that fact. This .presumption brings the case clearly within the rule announced in *Woodall*v. *Woodall,*144 Ark. 163, 221 S. W. 463, to the effect that courts may award to the innocent party in divorce suits the possession, for a limited time, or absolutely (meaning for life) of a homestead held by entirety.

The court erred in divesting title to the five-acre homestead tract out of appellant and investing same in appellee, subject to a lien for such portion of the purchase price as was paid by appellant, and for that reason the decree must be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award possession of the tract to appellee for life, subject to the right of survivorship. Cost adjudged against appellant. .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            762,478
<EQUITIES>                                      26,594
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 792,172
<CASH>                                          78,243
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             684,525
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          33,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,961,287
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,353,524
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            146,832
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                116,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,961,287
<PREMIUMS>                                     325,305
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             67,684
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  22
<OTHER-INCOME>                                (24,415)
<BENEFITS>                                     238,940
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     65,308
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            64,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (465)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,984)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,449)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                               1,603,548
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            247,027
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (8,087)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             101,294
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               245,278
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                              1,353,524
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                          8,087


</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 20

- 1936

DR. JUAN M. RODRIGUEZ

- RIVERA, d/b/a "Centro Reumatologico Dr. Juan Rodriguez" ,

Plaintiff, Appellant ,

v.

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.; ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE, LLC ,

Defendants, Appellees,

HEALTHCARE DATA SOLUTIONS, LLC, a/k/a HDSOSF, LLC; INSURANCE

COMPANIES A, B, and C; JOHN DOE; RICHARD ROE,

Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of thi s Court issued on July 19 , 20 22 , is amended as follows:

On page 4 , line 10 , add " right " after " stage "
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Kimberly Freeman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:17cv867 

Rite Aid, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on October 10, 2018 (Doc. 14). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), including 

notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report 

and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 

1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 14) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby 

ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, the previous R&R 

(Doc. 3) is WITHDRAWN and all pending motions (Docs. 4-12) are DENIED as MOOT; and 

this matter is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief. 

Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would not be 

taken in good faith and would be denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett 

United States District Judge
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51225 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JIMMY HENRY FUENTES-MEMBRENO, also known as Rodrigo Membreno Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-205-ALL
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jimmy Henry FuentesMembreno raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torresv. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51225

2 7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00189-CV

IN RE Eugenio Angel MARTINEZ

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 27, 2022

DISMISSED 

On April 5, 2022, the Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On April 6, 2022, the 

Relator filed a motion to dismiss stating the parties have settled all claims. The motion is granted 

and this original proceeding is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021-CVA-000857-D1, styled Viridiana Maldonado v. Eugenio Angel 

Martinez, pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Jose A. Lopez presiding.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council, January 11, 2022, 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; January 12, 2022, 12:00 to 5:00 p.m., NIH, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, C-Wing, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20894 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 1, 2021, 86 FR 228.                

The open session of the meeting on January 12, 2022, 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. has been canceled. Closed session of the meeting will begin on January 12, 2022, 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-00306 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 19-1620 CRISTIAN JOSUE DIAZ ORTIZ, Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

**ERRATA SHEET** The opinion of this Court, issued on May 15, 2020, is amended as follows:
On page 4, line 13, replace "pad lock" with "padlock". On page 7, line 3, replace "pad lock" with "padlock". On page 14, line 20, replace "pad lock" with "padlock". On page 15, line 5, replace "pad lock" with "padlock".
#### Lupton *v.*Lupton.

4-7890

194 S. W. 2d 686

Opinion delivered May 27, 1946.

*Jay M. Rowland,*for appellant.

*William G. Bouic,*for appellee.

BobiNS, J.

Appellee brought this suit praying for divorce from appellant on the ground that appellant had been guilty of such indignities toward him as to render his condition in life intolerable. Appellant’s answer was a general denial of the charges against her. The lower court found the issues in favor of appellee and from decree granting him a divorce this appeal is prosecuted.

For reversal appellant argues that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the decree.

These parties were married in 1920, and have two grown children. According to appellee’s testimony appellant, for a number of years before their separation, had quarreled at appellee, upbraiding him at mealtime until he could not eat in peace and nagging him at night until he could not sleep; and appellee asserted that this conduct on the part of appellant was such as to injure his health. There was some corroboration of appellee’s version of the matter, and, taken as a whole, the testimony of appellee and his witnesses was sufficient to *141establish the indignities and intolerable conduct which we have held sufficient ground to entitle the innocent spouse to a divorce. *Rose*v. *Rose,*9 Ark. 507; *Preas*v. *Preas,*188 Ark. 854, 67 S. W. 2d 1013; *Welborn*v. *Welborn,*189 Ark. 1063, 76 S. W. 2d 98.

While the effect of the testimony of appellant and her witnesses was to contradict the appellee and his witnesses, we cannot say that the findings and decree of the lower court were against the preponderance of the testimony. Therefore, under our long established rule that we do not reverse the decree of a chancery court on a question of fact, unless the finding of -the lower court is against the weight of tbe evidence, the- decree appealed from must be affirmed. *Giberson*v. *Wilson,*79 Ark. 581, 96 S. W. 137; *Bank of Pine Bluff*v. *Levi,*90 Ark. 166, 118 S. W. 250; *O'Neal*v. *Ross,*100 Ark. 555, 140 S. W. 743; *Fisher*v. *The Rice Growers Bank,*122 Ark. 600, 184 S. W. 36; *Reeves*v. *Reeves,*165 Ark. 505, 264 S. W. 979; *Horn*v. *Hull,*169 Ark. 463, 275 S. W. 905; *Atwood*v. *Ballard,*172 Ark. 176, 287 S. W. 1001; *Field*v. *Koonce,*178 Ark. 862, 12 S. W. 2d 772, 68 A. L. R. 1303; *Jackson*v. *Banks,*182 Ark. 1185, 33 S. W. 2d 40; *White*v. *Williams,*192 Ark. 41, 89 S. W. 2d *927; Piggott Nursery Company*v. *Davis,*195 Ark. 738, 113 S. W. 2d 1102; *High*v. *Bailey,*203 Ark. 461, 157 S. W. 2d 203; *Burnett*v. *Clark,*208 Ark. 241, 185 S. W. 2d 703.
* 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. 07-51225

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JIMMY HENRY FUENTES-MEMBRENO, also known as Rodrigo Membreno

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CR-205-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jimmy Henry FuentesMembreno raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a

penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51225

2

7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.