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


<ARTICLE>                                                      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from audited financial
statements for the six month period ending
June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                 0000883424
<NAME>                           WINTHROP MIAMI ASSOCIATES L. P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                1
<CASH>                                                 5,711,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          4,305,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                              (4,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                58,901,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (10,926,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        67,295,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                            10,020,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          67,295,000
<SALES>                                                5,917,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       6,188,000
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       4,847,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     2,390,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          661,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (1,234,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                              1,895,000
<NET-INCOME>                                             661,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              2,204
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              2,204
        


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50018

Summary Calendar

Anthony Quinton Johnson, Jr., 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

United Law Firm Sanders Grossman, L.L.C., 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:20-CV-32

Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Anthony Quinton Johnson, Jr., moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s order dismissing as 

frivolous his lawsuit against two law firms for legal malpractice, pursuant to 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 30, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50018 Document: 00516110670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2021
No. 21-50018

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court denied his IFP motion, 

certifying that his appeal was not taken in good faith.

By moving to proceed IFP, Johnson is challenging the district court’s 

certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our 

inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal 

involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted).

Johnson does not renew the merits of his claim, does not brief any 

argument addressing the district court’s order of dismissal, and provides no 

argument challenging the district court’s reasons for certifying that his 

appeal is not taken in good faith. Although we liberally construe briefs of pro 

se litigants, see Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995), Johnson has 

abandoned any challenge to the certification decision and has failed to show 

that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal by failing to point to any error 

in the district court’s decision. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.

Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24. 

Johnson’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer v. 

Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

Case: 21-50018 Document: 00516110670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2021
# SECNAV Del Toro Statement on the Swearing-In of Adm. Lisa Franchetti as 33rd Chief of Naval Operations

#### 02 Nov 2023

It was my honor today to swear in Adm. Lisa Franchetti as the 33rd Chief of Naval Operations. It was a privilege to nominate Adm. Franchetti, and I am incredibly proud to have her serve as CNO. I have the utmost confidence that Adm. Franchetti will faithfully fulfill the duties of this esteemed position. I am excited for Adm. Franchetti and her family for their continued service to our Navy and our Nation. I look forward to working with her to lead our Force into the future as we continue to strengthen our maritime dominance, build a culture of warfighting excellence, and enhance strategic partnerships.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7768

ANTONIO COX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR AMONETTE; DAVE SMITH, Warden; RON ANGELONE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-492-R)

Submitted: April 13, 1999 Decided: April 23, 1999

Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Cox, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Cox, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Cox’s motion for appointment of

counsel and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Cox v. Amonette, No. CA-98-492-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 16,

1998). 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 the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Moise HARVEY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2528

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Mary Caroline HIGGINS, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Thomas N. BROWN, Former Husband, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2506

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.2



|           |  |     
|---------- |  | ----
|ASSIGNMENT |  | LOGO

Whereas, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and ADVO, Inc.
(ADVO) entered into 1) Information Technology Services Agreement, dated July 16,1996, 2) NetWorkstation Management Services Agreement, dated April 1, 1998 and 3) Server Farm Management Services Agreement, dated July 21,
1999 ( collectively the Agreements);

Whereas, ADVO, Inc. is now a subsidiary of Valassis Communications,
Inc.(Valassis);

Whereas, ADVO, Valassis and IBM desire an assignment of the agreements from ADVO to Valassis:

Wherefore, ADVO, Valassis and IBM agree as follows:

ADVO hereby assigns all of its rights and delegates all of its duties under the Agreements to Valassis and Valassis hereby assumes all of the duties and liabilities arising under the Agreements effective as of August 1, 2007. IBM
hereby consents to and accepts and agrees to such assignment and delegation.

Effective August 1, 2007, the Parties agree that the name
ADVO, Inc. ADVO, or Valassis hereinafter shall mean Valassis Communications, Inc. wherever those terms are used in the Agreements.



|             |  |                                             |  |     |  |                      
|------------ |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------
|Accepted by: |  | Accepted by:                               
|ADVO, Inc.   |  | International Business Machines Corporation
|             |  |                                             | 
|By:          |  | /s/ William F. Hogg Jr.                     |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard J. Sammon
|             |  | Authorized Signature                        |  |     |  | Authorized Signature 
|             |  |                                             | 
|             |  | William F. Hogg Jr.                         |  |     |  | Richard J. Sammon    
|             |  | Name (Type or Print)                        |  |     |  | Name (Type or Print) 
|             |  |                                             | 
|             |  | Date: 8/13/07                               |  |     |  | Date: 8/15/07        



|                              |  |                        
|----------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Accepted by:                 
|Valassis Communications, Inc.
|                              | 
|By:                           |  | /s/ William H. Blackmer
|                              |  | Authorized Signature   
|                              | 
|                              |  | William H. Blackmer    
|                              |  | Name (Type or Print)   

Date:



|                                                                |  |            
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------
|Letter of Assignment         Valassis / ADVO / IBM Confidential |  | Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  In connection with the Annual Report of ERHC Energy Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Peter Ntephe, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.
   /s/   Peter NtephePeter Ntephe
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer
July 8, 2009
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 21, 2013

NO. 03
- 10
- 00407
- CV

Renee Sheree O'Carolan, Appellant

v. Gary D. Hopper, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWI N AND FIELD AFFRIMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

–

OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the trial court’s
order denying the appellant’s spousal

- maintenance enforcement claim : IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged , and ordered that the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s spousal

maintenance enforcement claim is reversed, and we remand th a t claim to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FURTHER , we affirm both (1) the trial court’s
summary
- judgment order denying the appellant’s claim for continuation of spousal maintenance
and (2) the trial court’s final jud gment on the remanded property

- division claim

. It is
FURTHER ordered that each party shall pay the costs of the appeal incurred by that party , both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         857,488
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  280,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    241,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,380,913
<PP&E>                                         539,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,580,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          715,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,114
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,509,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,580,239
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,895
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,901,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,860,204)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,860,204)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,860,204)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,860,204)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      OF
      2002**





I,
        Paul
        D. Hamm, the Chief Executive Officer of Endavo Media and Communications,
        Inc.,
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Endavo Media
        and
        Communications, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31,
        2005
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report
        on
        Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of Endavo Media and Communications, Inc.


May
              17, 2007
            By:
                /s/ PAUL D HAMMName:
                Paul D HammTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Bryant CROSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 20**

 

**Consent of David Runnels**

 

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-Fof New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connectionwith, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled "NI 43-101 Technical Report Feasibility Studyof the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada”, dated February 14, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New GoldInc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in theregistration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.

  

Dated this 27th day of March, 2015

 

 

*/s/ David Runnels*	

Name: 	David Runnels

Title: 	Project Director
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ROYLAND RICE,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 10207

D.C. No. 4:12

- cr

- 00818

- PJH

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

.

Royland Rice appeals pro se from the district court ’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) . We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We vacate and remand with instructions that

the motion be dismissed without prejudice

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 10207

An inmate may file a motion for compassionate release in the district court

“after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure

of the Bureau of Pr isons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of

30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s

facility.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The request s for compassionate release the

district court cited as proof of exhaustion w ere directed to Rice’s unit manager and

made no mention of COVID

- 19 or any medical conditions ; indeed, in one of his

request s , Rice denied any serious medical issues

. As the gover nment argues, these

request s were insufficient to meet the exhaustion requirement. See 28 C

. F

. R

.

§ 571.61(a) ( inmate ’s request to the BOP must be submitted to the warden and, at a

minimum, contain the “extraordinary or compelling circumstances that the in mate

believes warrant consideration” )

. In light of the mandatory language of the

compassionate release statute, 1 the district court lacked authority to address Rice’s

motion. See Ross v. Blake , 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856

- 57 (2016).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand with

instructions that it dismiss Rice’s motion without prejudice. Rice is free to file

another motion for compassionate release in the district court, and we express no

1 Because it does not affect our decision, we do not decide whether the exhaustion requirement under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is jurisdictional or “a mandatory claim

processing rule subject to forfeiture,” Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis , 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1851 (2019). Even if it is solely a claim

- processing rule, the government has invoked it here, requiring dismissal of Rice’s motion. See id. at 1849.3 20

- 10207

opinion as to the merits of such a motion.

VACATED and REMANDED.
Joseph Arthur WIENDL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Stephanie WIENDL, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1276

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-02-428-CV

MICHAEL R. BENBO 	APPELLANT

	V.

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 	APPELLEE

HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER

	----------

	FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

On January 3, 2003 we notified appellant, in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3., that this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because there is no final judgment.  We stated that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

We received appellant’s response on January 17, 2003.  The appellant’s response has been considered and it is the opinion of the court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the overruling of a motion to dismiss is not a final judgment..  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM 			 		

PANEL D:	GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; WALKER, J.

[deDELIEVERED GEFEBRUARY 213, 2003.]
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00068

- CV

1ST RESOURCE GROUP, INC.,

GARY FEWELL, DOUGLAS

MCKINNON, DANIEL STR EETS,

AND RESOURCE VENTURE

PARTNERS, LLC APPELLANTS

V.

UMED HOLDINGS, INC. APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant s ' “ Unopposed Motion To Dismiss .” It is the

court = s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss th e

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant s , for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 17 , 2012
From: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Cnossen Jerry 

EAS COST) 

mreeve@reevecorp.com 

Gulkana air service 

Monday, December 08, 2014 

Dear Mr. Muldoon 

I am a construction superintendent living in Tok and regularly travel throughout Alaska. Currently I 

must drive to Fairbanks or Anchorage to begin my air travel. Regular service from Reeve Air Alaska 

will provide great service for Gulkana and other communities in the surrounding area. 

I have flown with Reeve Air for numerous years with nothing but positive experiences. I am writing 

this to offer my support for the Reeve Air Alaska proposal for Essential Air Service to the Gulkana 

airport. 

Sincerely, 

Jerry Cnossen 

ANTHC Superintendent 

907-782-5338 © 

jerry.cnossen@anthc.org