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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          77,947
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,219
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,158
<PP&E>                                          79,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           584
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,461
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,763
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,026)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (57,970)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (59,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,970)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.37)


</TABLE>
#### Ronald D. Murakami, Appellant-Respondent, v Gabrielle Machinist, Respondent-Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 886]

*337Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered September 25, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on damages unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction of the jury’s awards for past and future pain and suffering of $130,000 and $130,000, respectively, to $100,000 and $75,000, respectively, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion denied and the verdict reinstated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff suffered a fractured clavicle that necessitated surgical repair when, as a pedestrian, he was hit by defendant’s vehicle. The surgery left a shortened clavicle bone, and weakened and scarred the neighboring supporting shoulder muscles. Plaintiff has consequently endured persistent pain and intermittent immobility, which appreciably diminishes his ability to resume his previous athletic lifestyle. Upon review of the record, we find that the jury’s awards at issue are comparable to awards upheld for similar injuries *(see Donlon v City of New York,*284 AD2d 13 [2001]; *see e.g. Koplewicz v Colony Ticket Serv.,*211 AD2d 449 [1995], *lv denied*85 NY2d 810 [1995]; *Tate v Colabello,*88 AD2d 552 [1982], *affd*58 NY2d 84 [1983]), and accordingly reverse and reinstate the jury’s verdict. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Ellerin, JJ.
Exhibit 10.1


 


_______ __, 2019                                             


 


Capitol Investment Corp. IV


1300 17th Street, Suite 820


Arlington, VA 22209


 


This letter is to confirm the undersigned’s
commitment that, if funds are needed by Capitol Investment Corp. IV (the “Company”) and upon request by the Company,
the undersigned will provide additional loans of up to an aggregate of $____ to the Company. The undersigned understands that if
the Company does not consummate a business combination (as described in the Company's final prospectus, dated August 15, 2017),
all amounts loaned to the Company hereunder will be forgiven except to the extent that the Company has funds available to it outside
of its trust account established in connection with the Company's initial public offering.
Edwin A. Cruz VARGAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4011

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 18, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for belated appeal is denied.

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
T.D., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2684

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

T.D., a Juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Jerry Wayne FRY v. Janice Dale Gaskins FRY

2160255

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
James CURRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0744

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

James Curry, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Frank X. Moehrle, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

KELLY L. SHOEMAKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

WENDELL H. MURDOCK, et al., 

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-564

Judge Timothy S. Black

CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court being advised that the parties have reached an agreement to settle this 

civil action;

It is ORDERED that all claims in this action are hereby DISMISSED with 

prejudice, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 45 days, 

move to reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Also, if desired, the parties 

may timely move to substitute a judgment entry contemplated by the settlement 

agreement.

The Court expressly and explicitly retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 

agreement of the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/5/2019 /s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
#### Amelia FINLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. FAX, Officer #51243; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15432

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 20, 2017

Amelia Finley, Pro Se

James Randall Jue, Esquire, Maxine S. Mak, Esquire, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Civil Services Division, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Amelia Finley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest and imprisonment, and excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Furnace v. Sullivan,*705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Finley’s false arrest and imprisonment claim because Finley failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ conduct of detaining Finley was unreasonable under the circumstances. *See Hill v. California,*401 U.S. 797, 802, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971) (“[Wjhen the police have probable cause to arrest one party, and when they reasonably mistake a second party for the first party, then the arrest of the second party is a valid arrest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Finley’s excessive force claim because Finely failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. *See Graham v. Connor,*490 U.S. 386, 395-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (setting forth the objective reasonableness standard for excessive force determinations).

Because the district court properly determined that no reasonable jury could find that Finley’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, we reject as without *631merit Finley’s challenge to the district court’s additional determination that defendants Fax and Anderson were not sufficiently involved in the encounter.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Finley’s request for leave to file a sur-reply because the district court reviewed the briefing and found no new issues raised in defendants’ reply that necessitated further argument. *See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Seaboard Corp.,*677 F.2d 1301, 1314 (9th Cir. 1982) (setting forth standard of review).

Finley’s motion for leave to file an amended notice of appeal (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Glen SCHOFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3463

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 2018

Glen Schofield, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Jay KENNEDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3955

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99(1)

			CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
			    18 U.S.C. ss.1350
			 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
		SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Skinvisible, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December  31,  2002  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified  (the
"Report"),  I,  Terry  Howlett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,  as  adopted   pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
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.

                                     /s/ Terry Howlett
                                     ------------------------------------------

                                    TERRY HOWLETT, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 31, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Allyn John KOOPMAN Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-2114

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Filed: November 22, 2016

Mark Tremmel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Allyn John Koopman, Pro Se.

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to a drug offense, Allyn John Koopman appeals the district court’s1 order sentencing him to 100 months in prison with 3 years of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court sentenced Koopman to a within-Guidelines sentence after stating that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. *See United States v. Callaway,*762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable); *United States v. Miller,*557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors). An independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Linda R, Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
janice K. Brewer 

Governor 

SEP 0 2 2014 

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld 

Regional Administrator 

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT 

OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

1110 West Washington Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 

(602) 771-2300 • www.azdeq.gov 

SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

Mail Code: ORA-l 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Henry R. Darwin 

Director 

RE: MAG 2014 State Implementation Plan Revision for the Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery 

C~J the Maricopa Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Dear M!)Mtlmenfeld: · 

Consistent with the provisions of the Arizona Revised Statues §§ 49-104, 49-106,49-404, 49-406 and 49-

425 (Enclosure 1) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CPR) Title 40, §§51.1 05 through 51.104, the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the MAG 2014 State Implementation Plan Revision for the 

Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery Controls in the Maricopa Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area as 

a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

On May 16, 2012, the EPA determined that onboard refueling vapor recovery systems are in widespread 

use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. In accordance with Clean Air Act Section 202(a)(6), EPA waived 

the requirement for states to implement Stage II gasoline recovery systems at gasoline dispensing 

facilities (77 FR 28772). Since Stage II is a duplicative system, this SIP revision requests that EPA 

remove the requirement for Stage II vapor recovery in this area for new gasoline dispensing facilities 

beginning in 2014 and.for existing facilities beginning in October 2016, before regional disbenefit begins 

to occur in 2018. 

ADEQ requests that EPA approve this revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan. Enclosure 2 

contains the SIP Completeness Checklist and Enclosure 3 contains one hard copy and an exact duplicate 

copy on CD of the SIP supplement. If you have any questions, please contact me at (602) 771-2288. 

Sincerely, 

Air 

cc: Michelle Wilson, Arizona Department of Weights and Measures 

Lindy Bauer, Maricopa Association of Governments, w/o enclosures 

Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region.IX, w/o enclosures 

Southern Regional Office 

400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701 

(520) 628-6733 

Printed on recycled paper
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 539 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 145 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
Eugene HUNTER, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2595

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     I, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005      By: /s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.       Name: Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.   *Title: President and Chief Executive Officer*
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute TO: Christine Davis

FROM: George Van Houtven, Vesall Nourani

DATE: May 20, 2011

SUBJECT: Data Used for Benefits Analysis in Mercury/Utility MACT RIA

To provide the additional data and documentation requ ested, we have compiled the following files for the docket:

Hucbuffer.accdb – This file contains four variables: fips, huc12, ring, and xarea. Each census tract (fips) has a HUC12 area (xarea) associated with each ring around the tract center. These data were used to link tract-level populations with area-weighted (HUC12 ar ea) average Hg concentrations in each distance category.

Tract-level population data – There are several files with Census tract level populations (2000), including for Chippewa ( chip_pop.xlsx ), Laotian ( lao_pop.xlsx ), Hispanic ( Hispanic_pop.xlsx ), Lowincome Females ( Low-income_Femalex.xlsx ). In addition, the file tract_all_white_black.xlsx contains the following demographic data for the total, White, and Black populations by Census tract: 1. Fips – Tract Code 2. Totpop – total tract population in 2000. 3. Fem15_44 – Total female population aged 15 to 44 in 2000. 4. Povuniv – subpopulation for whom poverty data is available 2000. 5. Belowpov – population below poverty from among povuniv. 6. Totpopw – Total white tract population in 2000. 7. Totpopwf – Total white female tract population in 2000. 8. Wfem15_44 – Total white female tract population between ages 15 and 44 in 2000. 9. Totpopb – Total black tract population in 2000. 10. Totpopbf – Total black female tract population in 2000. 11. bfem15_44 – Total black female tract popula tion between ages 15 and 44 in 2000. 12. Povunivw – white subpopulation for w hom poverty data is available 2000. 13. Belowpovw – white population below poverty from among white povuniv. 14. Belowpovwf – white female population be low poverty from among white povuniv. 15. Povunivb – black subpopulation for whom poverty data is available 2000. 16. Belowpovb – black population below poverty from among black povuniv. 17. Belowpovb – black female population below poverty from among black povuniv.

State_demographics.xlsx – State-level data for additional demogra phic variables used in the analysis: 1. Lake_Percent_2001 – Percent of trips taken by state anglers to lakes 2001. 2. River_Percent_2001 – Percent of trips taken by state anglers to rivers in 2001. 3. Angler_Percent_2006 – Percent of in-s tate population that are anglers 2006. 

### 4. Fertility_2006 – Fertility rate 2006.