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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,106
<SECURITIES>                                    41,629
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,143
<PP&E>                                          18,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,846)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,945
<BONDS>                                         13,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,507
<OTHER-SE>                                   (174,564)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,533
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,131)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,131)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.4(b)






Exhibit 10.4(b)




VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC

1310 Goshen Parkway

PO Box 2656

West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380




December 18, 2008




John Ballbach

415 Boxwood Road

Bryn Mawr, PA 19010




Dear John:



In order to comply with final regulations under §409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, the terms of your employment agreement dated June 29, 2007, are hereby revised as follows:




	1.	 	The second and third paragraphs of the section entitled “Severance/Restrictive
Covenants” are revised to read as follows:






If you incur a Disability (as defined on Annex 1), you will be
entitled to receive a lump-sum payment, as soon as practicable following
your Disability but in no event later than March 15 of the calendar year
following the calendar year in which such Disability is incurred, in an
amount equal to the target amount of your bonus for the year in which such
Disability is incurred, prorated for the portion of such year during which
you were employed with VWR. In addition, you shall be entitled to receive
payments of your base salary until payments to you under VWR’s long-term
disability plan commence but in any event for a period not to exceed 18
months from the date of your termination of employment.




If your employment with VWR and its affiliates is terminated by reason of
your death, your beneficiary or estate, as applicable, will be entitled to
receive a lump-sum payment as soon as practicable following your death but
in no event later than March 15 of the calendar year following the calendar
year in which your death occurs, in an amount equal to the target amount of
your bonus for the year in which your death occurs, prorated for the portion
of such year during which you were employed with VWR.




	2.	 	A new paragraph is added to the section entitled “280G” to read as follows:






	 	280G:  	 	Any Special Reimbursement hereunder shall be paid to you by VWR not later than
the last day of the calendar year next following the calendar year in which you remit
the Basic Excise Tax.





If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (312) 895-1250.




Sincerely,




/s/
Timothy P. Sullivan                     
                         
Timothy P. Sullivan



Accepted and Agreed:



	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ John Ballbach
	 	 
	 	 	 
	John Ballbach	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:
	 	12/18/08
<PAGE>

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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, James A. Joyce, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

1. Such quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2. The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.

Date: February 14, 2005

By:         /s/ James A. Joyce
            James A. Joyce
            Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be
retained by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Alien GUILLAUME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3095

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      23 (ii)**

















**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
      333-125290) on Form S-8 for Enigma Software Group, Inc. (formerly known as
      Adorons.com, Inc.) of our report dated March 29, 2005 (with respect to
      Note B, April 8, 2005) on our audit of the statements of operations,
      changes in capital deficits and cash flows of Enigma Software Group, Inc.
      (formerly known as Adorons.com, Inc.) included in Form 10KSB for the year
      ended December 31, 2005.








Eisner
      LLP





New
      York,
      New York


April 6,
      2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             929
<SECURITIES>                                    18,376
<RECEIVABLES>                                      584
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,538
<PP&E>                                           5,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,835
<BONDS>                                          6,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,794
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,816
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,107)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,107)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,107)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.65)


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000798399
<NAME> APPLIED INNOVATION INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,195,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,172,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                   228,284
<INVENTORY>                                  3,176,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,759,509
<PP&E>                                      17,075,724
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,241,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,707,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,104,566
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       157,908
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,245,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,707,548
<SALES>                                     46,661,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,661,054
<CGS>                                       20,091,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,091,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            27,988,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,017,195)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (380,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (637,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (637,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)


</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Thomas D. Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Nebraska, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2421

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

$6,586.05 in United States Currency, * District of Nebraska.

*

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Roger John Parker, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2006

Filed: June 13, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Claimant Roger Parker appeals the district court’s1

 adverse judgment in this

civil forfeiture action. After a bench trial, the court found that the government met its

burden of proving that the seized currency was substantially connected to drug-
-2-

trafficking activity and that the money was not derived from legitimate sources.

Parker’s assertion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case is without

merit because he consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. Accepting the

district court’s factual findings and evidentiary rulings as correct, see Fed. R. App. P.

10(b)(1)-(2); Meroney v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir. 1994);

Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987)

(per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1071 (1988), we conclude the district court’s

judgment was proper, see United States v. $117,920.00, 413 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir.

2005). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0429

DUANE BURCHILL,

Petitioner and Appellant.

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including June 26, 2023, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 18 2023

05/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0429
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: September 4, 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Region 7 , EPA SUBJECT: September 3 , 2014 , Conference Call Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for

Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 3 , 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

. The majority of the discussion centered on renewable credits and projec ting CO 2 using modeling

. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014
. **ATTENDEES** EPA Region 7: Mark A. Smith Ward Burns Toni Gargas Josh Tapp Mike Jay Io wa Department of Natural Resources Catherine Fitzsimmons Marnie Stein Jason Marcel Kansas Department of Health and Environment Melissa Weide Miles Stotts Lynn Deahl Tom Gross Rick Brunetti Missouri Department of Natural Resources Emily Wilbur Paul Meyers Nebraska Department of Environmental QualityAdam Yari na

Brian Kozisek Katie Gutierrez
Order entered December 11, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01496-CV

IN RE JANNET WALKER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-15-02217-3

ORDER

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore and Brown

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We DENY relator’s motion for emergency relief as moot. We ORDER relator to bear the costs 

of this original proceeding. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
* 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. 02-20567

Summary Calendar

 

RODNEY KYLE BURTON,

 PetitionerAppellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 RespondentAppellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-3892

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

December 3, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

RodneyKyle Burton, Texas prisoner # 834048, appealsthe denial of his FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)

motion seeking to have the judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition vacated. In his instant

petition, Burton challenged the validity of his 1991 guilty-plea theft-by-check conviction, which was
-2-

used to enhance his 1998 sexual-assault conviction. The district court determined that Burton’s 1991

guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and denied his habeas petition. Burton argues, as he did in

his Rule 60(b) motion before the district court, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition because a state habeas petition challenging his 1998 conviction on different

grounds was pending in state court when he filed his instant federal habeas petition. 

Burton’s Rule 60(b) motion raised no challenges to his convictions; nor did it challenge the

district court’s assessment of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims. Rather, as apparent from Burton’s

pleadings, his Rule 60(b) motion sought to vacate the judgment denying habeas relief in an attempt

to manipulate the jurisdiction of the district court with respect to his later filed 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition raising a different challenge to his 1998 conviction. Though the district court denied Burton

a certificate of appealability (C0A) and Burton seeks a COA from this court, a COA is not required

for Burton’s appeal. See Dunn v. Cockrell, __ F.3d __, 2002 WL 1888802 * 1 (5th Cir. Aug. 15,

2002). 

Burton’s argument on appeal and presented in his Rule 60(b) motion, that the district court

lacked jurisdiction over hisfederal habeas petition because his state habeas petition wasstill pending

in state court, is without merit. See Narvaiz v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 688, 693 n.1 (5th Cir. 1998);

Brewer v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The district court’s denial of Burton’s Rule 60(b) motion is AFFIRMED. To the extent a

COA is required to appeal the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, COA IS DENIED.
#### Ford vs. Ford, Adm’r.

In actions of Trover, as well as in Replevin and Detinue, the period of limitation is three years, not five as held in *Ryburn vs. Pryor,*14 *Ark.*519, which is overruled.

*Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court.*

Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Hempstead, for the appellant.

Jordan, for the appellee.

*135Mr. Justice FaiRchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

To an action of trover the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations of three years, which, on motion of the plaintiff, the court struck from the files.

This the second, but the main objection to the’proeeedings of the court below, for which its judgment is asked to be reversed.

The simple question presented for our consideration is whether the action of trover is subject to the limitation of three or five years.

The 10 *th section of chapter*106 *of Gould's Digest,*in enumerating what actions shall be brought within three years from the accrual of the cause of action, has this clause: “fifth, all actions for taking or injuring any goods or chattels.”

This court has decided that actions of replevin and detinue fall within this provision. *Payne vs.*Bruton, 5 *Eng.*57; *Sullivan vs. Hadley,*16 *Ark.*149, 152.

Although trover does not complain of the violent taking or forcible injury of chattels, it does allege their conversion as an injury to the plaintiff; and any recovery that is had in the action is for that injury, it being estimated at the value .of the thing converted.

It is as much an action for the taking of chattels as are replevin in the detinet and detinue, and is a concurrent remedy with them for the detention of chattels, which is injurious to the owner. It is a concurrent remedy with trespass for the taking of personal property, though it is distinguished from it in waiving damages for the mere taking, and from detinue and replevin in the deti-net, in that it does not seek to recover the thing detained, but its value.

But in all the elementary books it is classed with these actions as an action founded upon wrong done by the defendant.

We think the same period of limitations should attach to trover, as to the actions of replevin and detinue; that three years has properly bqen held to be the limitation applicable to them by our statute: that the action of trover is embraced within the fifth clause of the 10th section of our present limitation law, *136and that *Ryburn vs. Pryor,*14 *Ark.*519, announcing five years to be the term of limitations for actions of trover, is erronous and ought to be overruled.

The judgment the Circuit Court of Prairie county is reversed, with instructions to allow the plea of three years limitations to be re-instated, and to overrule the motion to strike it from the record.
Attorneys F. John Caldwell – Admitted FL, NY, NJ, Fed Cir., 3d Cir., Fed. Cl., D.N.J., S.D.N.Y. William G. Christopher – Board Certified in Civil Trial Advocacy, Business Litigation and Construction Law. Admitted FL, TX, VA, DC, 2nd Cir., 4th Cir., 6th Cir., Fed. Cl., D.C. Cir., Fed Cir., U.S. Tax Ct., U.S. Altom M. Maglio – Admitted FL, DC, D.C. Cir., E.D. Mich., N.D. Ohio, D. Co., W.D. Ok., Fed. Cl., U.S. Jennifer Anne Gore Maglio – Admitted FL, DC, 2nd Cir., 11th Cir., Fed. Cl., Fed Cir., U.S.

Diana L. Stadelnikas – Admitted FL, Fed. Cl.

Anne Carrión Toale – Admitted FL, 11th Cir., M.D Fla., Fed. Cl., Fed Cir.

Offices: Sarasota, FL & Washington, DC www.mctplaw.com ♦ P:888

• 952

• 5242 ♦ F:941

• 952

• 5042 Reply To: 1751 Mound Street, Second Floor, Sarasota, FL 34236

October 7, 2010

The Honorable Ray H. LaHood Secretary of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Docket OST-2000-7182

Dear Secretary LaHood:

This letter expresses support for the application of AirTran Airways Inc. for two available Ronald Reagan Washington Nati onal Airport (DCA) slots being allocated in Docket OST-2000-7182 to provide nonstop service fr om Sarasota Bradenton International Airport (SRQ) to DCA.

At present, the Sarasota Bradenton area has only one daily nonstop on a regional jet to Washington, DC. This dramatically impacts our firm’s business as we have a national medical product liability practice with offices in Sarasota and Washington, DC . From our continual travels between Washington, DC and Sarasota, Florida, we can testify first hand to the strong demand for addition al flights between those locations.

With over 750,000 residents and our prime locati on as a leisure destination for tourists, SRQ can certainly support additional service and it would be a great help to the tourism industry in this region, which suffered a signific ant impact from the BP oil spill. This new service would also help mitigate the negative economic impact the recession has had on the community and the airport.

We ask that the slots be awarded to AirTran for utilization to SRQ.

Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,

Altom M. Maglio
David FERNANDEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The CITY OF KEY WEST, Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1196

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 09, 2017

ORDERED that the stipulation for dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Florida is hereby dismissed.