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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MAXI GROUP,
INC. DECEMBER 31, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,810
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,810
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,590
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,925
<OTHER-SE>                                    (35,705)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,810
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    98
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,615)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,615)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,615)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
Lemonty THOMPKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1046

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Rocco J. Carbone, III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 32-2 Filed: 11/18/18 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: 263
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 82 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Justice and the 

Department of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Procedures for Credible 

Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, 

and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2022 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. BABIN, Mr. PERRY, Mr. BUDD, Mr. LAMBORN, 

Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. NORMAN, Ms. 

HERRELL, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. ISSA, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. 

BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. LONG, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. 

SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. ROY, Mr. ROSE, Mr. HUDSON, Mrs. 

HARSHBARGER, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mrs. GREENE of 

Georgia, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. ELLZEY, Ms. MACE, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BUCK, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. 

MURPHY of North Carolina, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. ESTES, Mr. BURGESS, 

and Mr. GOHMERT) submitted the following joint resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of 

Justice and the Department of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT 

Protection Claims by Asylum Officers’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:55 Apr 28, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ82.IH HJ82

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 82 IH 

1 partment of Justice and the Department of Homeland Se2 curity relating to ‘‘Procedures for Credible Fear Screening 

3 and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, 

4 and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers’’ (87 FR 

5 18078), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Pete C. MERGENSCHROER et al *v.*Gerald ASHLEY

5-4603

429 S. W. 2d 120

Opinion delivered June 3, 1968

[Rehearing denied July 15, 1968.]

*Jack Sims,*for appellants.

No Brief filed for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellants Pete C. Mergen-schroer et al appeal from a chancery decree refusing to enjoin appellee Gerald Ashley’s operation of Jo-Jo’s Bar-B-Que at 3401 Parker Street, North Little Rock, as a nuisance, and refusing to cause appellee to remove as an obstruction that portion of his barbecue pit that extended into the street right-of-way. For reversal appellant relies upon the following points:

I. The Chancellor erred in holding that the North Little Rock Board of Adjustment was empowered to allow and approve defendant’s building his structure into the public right-of-way.

II. The Chancellor erred in refusing or declining to order the defendant to remove that part of the structure known as Jo-Jo’s Bar-B-Q which extended into the street right-of-way.

*1239We do not reach the alleged error of the trial court in holding that the North Little Rock Board of Adjustment was empowered to allow and approve appellee’s building of the encroachments on the street, because appellants have failed to show any special damages which would entitle them to enjoin the encroachments.

The record shows that the dedicated street right-of-way is 50 feet; that the paved or traveled portion of the road comprises some 25 or 30 feet; and that appellants readily recognize that they could not drive on the 8 or 9 feet of the dedicated right-of-way obstructed by the barbecue pit.

In *Adams*v. *Merchants*& *Planters Bank & Trust Co.,*226 Ark. 88, 288 S. W. 2d 35 (1956), we held that before one could abate an encroachment upon a public street he must show special damages not common to the public at large. Here the encroachment shown is not on any portion of the street which appellants propose to use and because of their failure to show any special damages from the encroachments not suffered by the public in general, we find their contentions to be without merit.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ORLANDO CARTER, Debtor,

Appellant,
v. . Case No. 3:18-cv-283
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
GROUP, INC.,
Appellee.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Appeal
Case No. 06-30086
Judge Guy R. Humphrey

DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF APPEAL (DOC. #6); VACATING JUDGMENT
(DOC. #5); REOPENING CASE; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

On August 13, 2018, pro se Appellant Orlando Y. Carter filed a timely
Notice of Appeal of the United States Bankruptcy Court’s August 1, 2018, Order
dismissing Adversary Proceeding No. 18-3034. Doc. #1. On October 18, 2018,
the Bankruptcy Court filed its Clerk's Certification of Record on Appeal, Doc. #2,
noting that no designated items had been filed. This Court ordered Appellant's
brief to be filed by November 1, 2018. No brief was filed within the time allotted.

The Court directed Appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal
should not be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Doc. #3.

When no response was filed, the Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice for


want of prosecution. Doc. #4. On December 28, 2018, judgment was entered in
favor of Appellee. Doc. #5.

On January 22, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion for Reinstatement of Appeal,
Doc. #6. He declares, under penalty of perjury, that he did not receive copies of
the Court’s briefing schedule or the Show Cause Order at the prison where he is
currently incarcerated. He asks that the Court reinstate the appeal and reset the
briefing schedule.

The Court interprets Appellant’s motion as a motion for relief from judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (incorporating Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60 into the Bankruptcy Rules). Given Appellant’s sworn statement that he did
not receive the documents mailed to him, the Court finds excusable neglect.
Moreover, no party will be prejudiced by the short delay that resulted from that
neglect.

Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS Appellant’s Motion for Reinstatement of
Appeal, Doc. #6, and VACATES the Judgment that was entered on December 28,
2018, Doc. #5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reopen the above-captioned appeal.

No later than March 5, 2019, Appellant shall file with the bankruptcy clerk
and serve on the Appellee a designation of the items to be included in the record
on appeal, and a statement of the issues to be presented. Appellant's brief shall
be filed no later than April 4, 2019. Appellant's brief shall be filed no later than
April 18, 2019, and Appellant’s reply brief shall be filed no later than April 25,

2019.


Lf .
Date: February 15, 2019 rile ~

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,598
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,959
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,232
<PP&E>                                          34,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,776
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,333
<BONDS>                                         14,313
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           169
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,930
<SALES>                                        102,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,088
<CGS>                                           59,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,844)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,556)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (28,564)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (38,120)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.53)
        

</TABLE>
#### Smiser et al. vs. Robertson et al.

A writ of error will not lie to the statutory judgment upon a forfeited forthcoming bond.

*Writ of Error to the Gi/rcuit Court of Phillips Qov/nty.*

Eowleb & Stillwell, for tbe plaintiffs.

After making points and citing authorities to show that the original judgment was erroneous, contended that the original proceeding and first judgment, being erroneous, the second and dependant statutory judgment is necessarily erroneous also. *Fowler vs. Gibson et al.,*4 *Arrie. 11.*427/ *Barton vs. Petit <& Bayard,*2 *Oond. B.*494/ *8. G.*7 *Oranoh.*288.

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In response to the writ of error in this case, there has been certified into this court, a transcript of the entire record and proceedings from its inception in the Phillips Circuit Court to a return of a forfeited forthcoming bond, regular upon its face, executed upon the levy of an execution issued upon the original judgment.

The statutory judgment, thus shown, extinguished the original judgment, to which a writ of error will no longer lie, as has been heretofore settled in this court. *(Phillips et al. vs. Wills, Pease, & Co.,*14 *Ark. Rep.*595; *Dougherty vs. McDonald, ib.*597.) And the question presented is whether or not that writ will now lie to this statutory judgment.

Writs of error lie only for the revision of the mistakes of courts of record, proceeding in the course of the common law. In the *600case of *Ruddell vs. Magruder,*6 *Eng. R.*579, it was belcl that tbe forfeited fortbcoming bond bas, by operation of law, tbe force and effect of a judgment; and that tbe sheriff’s return of forfeiture was conclusive record evidence of that fact, and tbat tbe execution does not issue upon tbe fortbcoming bond, but upon tbe statutory judgment, wbicb, by operation of law, springs into being upon tbe forfeiture.

Sncb,'then, is tbe legal effect of tbe forfeiture, without any order or judgment of tbe court thereon. Hence, there is no order or judgment of a court of record to complain of, through a writ of error. And such was tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court of Alabama in a like case. *(Taylor et al. vs. Powers, use, &c.,*3 *Ala. R.*285. See, also, *McNutt et al. vs. Wilcox & Farn,*3 *How. Mis. R.*421.)

Tbe cases cited to 'the contrary by tbe counsel for tbe plaintiffs in error, where tbe court entertaining tbe writ of error, looked to tbe original proceedings and final judgment, and finding them erroneous, held tbe second judgment also erroneous, as a dependant one, are all cases where tbe second was in fact tbe judgment of a court of record obtained after notice to tbe obligors in tbe fortbcoming bond and motion against them in court. Those cases, therefore,, have no bearing upon the question we have been considering.

In tbe view we have thus taken, we are of opinion tbat.tbe writ of error improvidently issued in this case, and it must therefore be dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 51 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 51

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving 
Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2021

   Mr. Womack (for himself, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Budd, Mr. 
  Harris, and Mr. Crawford) 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 giving 
Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 
                             United States.

    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--

    ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32


                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-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, James A. Joyce, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Accounting 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-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.

Date: November 19, 2008

By: /s/ James A. Joyce
    -----------------------
    James A. Joyce
    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting 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.
Steven MATTHEWS and Tamela Matthews v. Daniel YOUNG

2160092

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 75 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.75

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
               September 30, 2022, and for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2022 (division A of Public Law 117-43) is further 
amended--
        (1) by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and 
    inserting ``March 15, 2022''; and
        (2) in section 163, by striking ``$300,000,000'' and inserting 
    ``$500,000,000''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY ORDER FOR FENTANYL-RELATED SUBSTANCES.

    Effective as if included in the enactment of the Temporary 
Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl 
Analogues Act (Public Law 116-114), section 2 of such Act (as amended 
by Public Law 117-86) is amended by striking ``March 11, 2022'' and 
inserting ``March 15, 2022''.
    This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Extension of Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2022''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00263-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 158th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22-4364-158

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

BARBARA ELLEN LYNCH, Appellant

V.

JASON PAUL NIELD, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On October 14, 2022, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as 

the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, on or before October 24, 2022, 

appellant filed with the court an appellant’s brief and an accompanying motion 

reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal.

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 10, 2022
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Feliz Porrata, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>In consolidated appeals, defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Neil E. Ross, J.), rendered March 18, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence, and (2) an order of the same court (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), entered April 18, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), entered April 18, 2013, affirmed. Appeal from judgment of conviction (Neil E. Ross, J.), rendered March 18, 2013, dismissed as abandoned.</p><p>Defendant's 2001 New Jersey felony conviction of endangering the welfare of a child (<i>see</i> N.J. Stat Ann ยง 2C: 24-4[a][1]), which required him to register as a sex offender in that State (<i>see</i> N.J. Stat Ann ยง 2C:7-2[b][2]), automatically resulted in an override to risk level three (<i>see </i>Correction Law 168-a[2][d][ii]<i>; Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of NY</i>, 8 NY3d 745, 748-749 [2007]; <a href="../2008/2008_04967.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Mann</i>, 52 AD3d 884</a>, 885 [2008]; SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Guidelines at Factor 9; <i>cf. People v Diaz</i>, __ NY3d __, 2018 NY Slip Op 08424 [2018]). Accordingly, defendant qualifies as a level three offender independently of any point assessments (<a href="../2015/2015_05582.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Fair</i>, 129 AD3d 617</a>, 617 [2015], <i>lv denied </i>26 NY3d 910 [2015]). </p><p>We have reviewed defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: January 16, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>