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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         376,013
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      528
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               376,541
<PP&E>                                      61,100,449
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,529,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,947,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          376,541
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,570,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,947,504
<SALES>                                      1,479,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,481,883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,440,388
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,440,388
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,440,388
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.240
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.240
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JULY 13, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-13-1997
<CASH>                                       3,857,387
<SECURITIES>                                   212,062
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,835,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                   202,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,171,277
<PP&E>                                     289,595,648
<DEPRECIATION>                              39,195,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             285,120,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,099,662
<BONDS>                                    172,959,703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  93,633,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               285,120,976
<SALES>                                     38,645,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,607,117
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,489,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,544,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,641,546
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,761,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,880,546
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                   (1,164,114)
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,716,432
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44


</TABLE>
#### GET OUTDOORS II, LLC, A Nevada Limited Liability Company, dba Get Outdoors, LLC, in California, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-56925.

D.C. No. CV-03-01437-TJW/RBB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Patrick “Rick” Lund, Kimball, Tirey & St. John, Newport Beach, CA, E. Adam Webb, Webb *&*Porter, L.L.C., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven Eugene Boehmer, McDougal Love Eckis Smith and Boehmer, El Cajon, CA, for Defendan1>-Appellee.

Before BROWNING, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Plaintiff Get Outdoors II, L.L.C., appeals the district court’s order denying Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and staying the action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We review a stay for abuse of discretion, albeit with somewhat less deference than usually inheres in the abuse-of-discretion standard. *Yong v. INS,*208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2000). We also review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion; our review is limited and deferential. *Rodde v. Bonta,*357 F.3d 988, 994-95 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a stay and denying Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. The stay was for a limited duration and was a legitimate and permissible exercise of the court’s authority to manage its docket. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argument that the court’s failure to enjoin the challenged ordinance caused it irreparable harm is belied by the fact that the challenged ordinance was *repealed,*one week *173*before*the district court refused to enjoin it.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
November 8, 2021

Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse 

100 East Fifth Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202-3988

Re: William T. Schmitt, et al.

v. Craig M. Stephens, et al.

No. 21-491

(Your No. 20-4025)

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk 

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 87 Filed: 11/09/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 658
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00012

- CV

Iglesia Pentecostal Filadelfia, Inc. v. Jose I. Rodriguez Jr.

On Appeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- DCL

- 05262

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APP EALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision c ertified below for observance. December 29, 2021
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Fernando ZENDEJAS-GAZCON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-10196.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*185Submitted May 10, 2004*

Decided May 18, 2004.

Eric J. Markovich, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. DeConcini, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alfred Islas, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Fernando Zendejas-Gazcon appeals his sentence imposed after his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Zendejas-Gazcon contends that the presentence report had incomplete information on his prior conviction thereby preventing a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.17.

Zendejas-Gazcon agreed, as part of a negotiated plea agreement, to waive his right to appeal his sentence. Such waivers will be enforced if “knowingly and voluntarily made.” *See United States v. Martinez,*143 F.3d 1266, 1271 (9th Cir.1998). The record indicates that the district court questioned Zendejas-Gazcon to ensure that he understood his rights and that his waiver was both voluntary and informed. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Zendejas-Gazeon’s sentence. *See United States v. Vences,*169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1999) (noting that effective waiver of appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Amendment to Offer Letter - William C. Houghton



 Exhibit 10.78 
 March 24, 2009 
 William Houghton, M.D. 
 Dear
Bill, 
 Anesiva, Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to offer you an amendment to your employment terms, as set forth in the offer
letter between you and the Company, dated July 9, 2008 (the “Offer Letter” attached hereto as Exhibit A). The employment terms set forth in this Amendment are effective as of April 1, 2009 (the “Amendment Date”)
unless stated otherwise. Unless this Amendment specifically states that it supersedes an employment term in the Offer Letter, the employment terms of the Offer Letter shall remain binding and in full force and effect. 
 1. Relocation Benefits. In order to assist you with your relocation, the Company will do the following: 
  

	 	•	 	 Pay you $4,000 per month ($2,000 semi-monthly) to rent temporary housing in the San Francisco Bay Area for one year from your Employment Commencement Date
(“Housing Allowance”). Upon a Change of Control, as defined in the Company’s Amended and Restated Executive Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan dated January 20, 2009, or involuntary termination, the payments for the
remaining months of the one (1) year term will be accelerated. The Housing Allowance payments will be paid in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll schedule and will be subject to reduction to reflect applicable withholding and
payroll taxes and other deductions required by law. 


  

	 	•	 	 Reimburse you or pay on your behalf up to $5,000 for reasonable hotel, airfare, and rental car expenses for three (3) months after April 1, 2009
for travel for you and your wife between Texas and the San Francisco Bay Area consistent with the Company’s travel policy or otherwise pre-approved by the Company (“Travel Expenses”). 


 2. Employment Relationship. Your employment with the Company is and continues to be “at will,” as described in paragraph 12 of
the Offer Letter 
 3. Supersedes. This Amendment supersedes and replaces any prior agreements, representations or
understandings, whether written, oral or implied, between you and the Company regarding the employment terms described in this Amendment, provided that unless specifically superseded, the original employment terms of the Offer Letter remain in full
force and effect. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	ANESIVA, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ John Tran
		 	John Tran
		 	VP, Finance & Chief Accounting Officer


 I have read, and accept and agree to, this letter agreement: 
  

	
	/s/ William Houghton
	Signature of William Houghton, M.D.

 Dated: 03/24/2009 
 cc: Michael Kranda
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 74 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 74

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   prohibiting the United States Government from increasing its debt 
 except for a specific purpose by law adopted by three-fourths of the 
                 membership of each House of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2022

 Mr. McClintock (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. C. 
Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Norman, Mr. Duncan, 
  and Mr. Ellzey) submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   prohibiting the United States Government from increasing its debt 
 except for a specific purpose by law adopted by three-fourths of the 
                 membership of each House of Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The United States Government may not increase its debt 
except for a specific purpose by law adopted by three-fourths of the 
membership of each House of Congress.
    ``Section 2. This article shall take effect beginning ten years 
after its ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Albert R. HOUSE, Relator, Appellant, v. Edwin L. SWOPE, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz, California, Appellee.

No. 15085.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 20, 1956.

*854Albert R. House, in pro. per.

Harrold Carswell, U. S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., C. W. Eggart, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court vacated our former judgment1 and remanded the case to this Court “for consideration in light of new information.” 2 Surmising, as best we can, the basis for the Supreme Court’s judgment, we apprehend that, in its opinion, appellant’s original motion3 brought his case within the ruling of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791,4 and that the judgment of conviction is subject to collateral attack on the grounds charged in the motion, in effect, that it was procured because appellant’s codefendant Henderson5 was coerced by a Government agent to testify falsely against him and his codefendant Lassiter was so coerced not to testify in his behalf. Now the Government furnishes us several affidavits to refute such charges. We think, however, that these issues thus raised cannot be disposed of on ex parte affidavits, but appellant is entitled to a hearing and to an opportunity to prove the facts alleged.6

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded for a hearing under Section 2255.

Reversed and remanded.

1

*. United States*ex rel. House v. Swope, 5 Cir., 219 F.2d 538.

2

. House v. Swope, 350 U.S. 945, 76 S.Ct. 324.

3

. *Under 28*U.S.C.A. § 2255.

4

. See also, Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 287, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356; United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65, 66, 25 L.Ed. 93.

5

. The Government’s brief says that the Henderson referred to was the father of the codefendant. If so, that does not change the result of the present appeal.

6

. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830; Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 223 F.2d 750.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01729]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-67-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7--Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Authorization 
of Production Activity; AbbVie Ltd.; (Pharmaceutical Products); 
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

    On September 24, 2021, AbbVie Ltd., submitted a notification of 
proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within 
Subzone 7I, in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 54923, October 5, 2021). On 
January 24, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: January 24, 2022.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01729 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

United States of America

vs. Case Number: 1:18cr111

Tracey Couch

CRIMINAL MINUTES: SENTENCING

Defendant appeared with counsel Brandon Marshall and Bill Hunt and was sentenced as follows:

2 Years Probation

Probation will terminate after 1 year if the defendant is successful in her first year

Mandatory drug testing is waived

Assessment: 100 (paid) Fine: 0 Restitution: $2,200 (paid)

Sal Dominquez AUSA

Judge: Susan J. Dlott

Courtroom Deputy: William Miller

Court Reporter: Julie Wolfer, Official

Date: November 19, 2019

Case: 1:18-cr-00111-SJD Doc #: 20 Filed: 11/19/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 58
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 584 

To constitute the majority party’s membership on certain committees for 

the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2020 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To constitute the majority party’s membership on certain 

committees for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, 

or until their successors are chosen. 

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the ma2 jority party’s membership on the following committee for 

3 the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, or until their suc4 cessors are chosen: 

5 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: Mr. Rubio 

6 (Chair), Mr. Burr, Mr. Risch, Ms. Collins, Mr. Blunt, Mr. 

7 Cotton, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Sasse. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,102
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,436
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    28
<PP&E>                                         124,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,712
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,142
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,026
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (328)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,457
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,457
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Michael LATHAM, Appellant, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1999

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 86 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 86 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 86 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 86 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 86 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 5 of 5