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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,590
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      623
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,313
<PP&E>                                          21,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,844)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,341
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,992
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,972
<SALES>                                          1,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,218
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)
        

</TABLE>
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Vo^^-^ ^"i^^CP? 

M j"- 1 if 'i 

.I vj-^uhrtllursO 

"fTTT 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Rizzi, Patrick R. [patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com] 

Tuesday, IVIarch 13, 2012 3:21 Pl\/I 

Adams, Kevin (OST); Martin, Michael (OST) 

Cohn, Robert E.; Rizzi, Patrick R. 

Peninsula Ainways' Notice (Atka, DOT-OST-1995-363) 

yrii/nljDN 

3 J- M- i 

Kevin and Michael: 

Peninsula Airways, Inc. (PenAir) currently operates subsidized EAS to Atka. PenAir hereby informs the Department that 

it will not be applying for re-selection as the EAS carrier for Atka and will cease that service upon the end of its current 

contract term at the end of June 2012 or the soonest date possible thereafter as permitted by applicable law and 

regulations. 

Under applicable U.S. Treasury Regulations we are required to inform you that any advice contained in this email 

or any attachment hereto is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, either (i) to avoid penalties 

imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, or (11) for promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party 

any tax-related matter addressed herein. 

Patrick Rizzi 

Counsel 

Hogan Lovells US LLP 

Columbia Square 

555 Thirteenth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Tel: 

Direct: 

Fax; 

Email: 

+1 202 637 5600 

+1 202 637 5659 

+1 202 637 5910 

patrick.rizzi @ hoganlovells.com 

www.hoganlovells.com 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 

About Hogan Lovells 

Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see 

www.hoQanlovells.com. 

CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed; it may also be privileged. If 

received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from 

your system.
#### * Commonwealth *versus*Lewis Hill.

A procuring a counterfeit bank note to be passed by an ignorant boy as a true one, was holden a sufficient passing, within the statute of 1804, c. 120, § 3.

This was an indictment for passing a counterfeit bank note to one *Joseph Bradbury.*

A trial was had before *Thatcher,*J., October term, 1812, at *Alfred,*in this county; when the evidence was that *Hill,*at the time alleged in the indictment, delivered the note therein mentioned to a boy by the name of *Aaron Smith,*and desired him to go, and, if he could, to pass it'away, agreeing to give him *one half*if he should so pass it; and if he could not pass it, then the note was to be returned to *Hill. Smith*passed the note as true to the said *Bradbury,*in the purchase of a waistcoat pattern, for which he allowed three dollars, and received" of *Bradbury*three dollars in change, which he returned to *Hill.*It appeared that the boy was innocent, and ignorant that the note was counterfeit.

A verdict was taken that the said *Hill*was guilty, subject, to tliu *130opinion of the Court on the question whether the foregoing evidence proved a passing of the bill to *Bradbury,*as charged in the indictment, no- question being made by the defendant’s counsel as to the *scienter.*

The indictment was continued to the last May term for argument upon the judges’ report, when it was argued by *Morton (Attorney-General)*for the commonwealth, and *Holmes*for the defendant.

*Holmes.*

There is no evidence that *Hill*ever passed the note at all. The delivery of a note to be passed is not passing it, more than delivering money to be paid to a creditor is payment. The fact charged in the indictment is made a misdemeanor by statute. But the evidence does not bring the case within the statute.

Nor did the defendant deliver the note to *Smith*as true. The whole transaction negatives such a supposition.

But, at any rate, he did not pass the note, nor direct it to be passed, to *Bradbury,*as charged in the indictment. If he were to be indicted for passing it to *Smith,*neither an ac- [ * 137 ] qui.ttal * nor a conviction on this indictment would be a bar to such prosecution. An averment that the of-fences were the same would be directly against the record.

*The Court*

took time in the vacation to consider the question, and being agreed that the evidence was sufficient, the defendant was sentenced by *Thatcher,*J., at the last term at *Alfred,*
      *(a)*

*Com Dig.,*Abatement, E, 4. — 1 Lord *Raym.*282. — *Foster's Crown*Law, disc. 3, c. 1. — 1 *Hale's Hist. P. C.*514, 617.— *Dalt. Just.*c. 108.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Mary O'Connor, Deceased. Alleyne M. Runyon, Respondent; Agnes Rampe, as Administratrix of the Estate of Mary O'Connor, Deceased, Appellant.

Submitted January 5, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*547
      *Thomas D. Austin, Elwood D. Hooper*and *Stephen J. Masse*for appellant.

*Frank, J. McEwen*for respondent.

Order affirmed with costs payable ont of the estate. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
**Exhibit23.2**

**Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of DirectorseCollege.com:

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-108501)on Form S-3 and (No. 333-34326) on Form S-8 of eCollege.com ofour report dated March 31, 2005, with respect to the consolidatedstatements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows of eCollege.comand subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004, which reportappears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K ofeCollege.com.

Our report refers to ouraudit of the consolidated financial statements before the effects of theadjustments to retrospectively reflect the discontinued operations discussed innote 3 to the consolidated financial statements. We were not engaged to audit,review, or apply any procedures to those adjustments.

**KPMG LLP**

Denver, ColoradoApril 2, 2007

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11659]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Winslow Homer: Crosscurrents” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street, NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-03490 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State

v. McDonald, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-527.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-527

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MCDONALD, APPELLANT.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. McDonald, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-527.]

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

(No. 2023-0954―Submitted February 6, 2024―Decided February 14, 2024.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County,

No. C-220328, 2023-Ohio-1987.

_________________

{¶ 1} This cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and BRUNNER, JJ.

STEWART, J., dissents and would order briefing on proposition of law No. 

II.

DETERS, J., not participating.

_________________

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula 

Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Sarah E. 

Nelson, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant, Robert McDonald.

_________________
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

I, Matthew Ryan Mecke, 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 Asia Payment Systems, Inc. on form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2004 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 Asia Payment Systems, Inc.

April _____, 2005     By:  /s/ Matthew Mecke
                           -----------------
                           Matthew Mecke
                           Chief Executive Officer (Principal 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 typed from within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Asia Payment Systems, Inc. and
will be retained by Asia Payment Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rudy ARRIOLA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40259 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 11, 2017

Eileen K. Wilson, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rudy Arriola, Pro Se

*311Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rudy Arriola, federal prisoner # 26353-001, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 180 months in prison based upon his three prior Texas convictions for burglary of a habitation and his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a building. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, which followed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court found that the Rule 60(b) motion, which raised a new claim that his predicate offenses were invalidated under *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), was an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the district court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue.

Arriola does not challenge the district court’s determination that his post-judgment motion raised a new claim for relief that rendered it an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. Instead, he argues that he is actually innocent of his sentence, that he is entitled to equitable tolling, and that his burglary convictions are no longer predicate offenses based on *Johnson.*When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. *Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Arriola fails to raise any argument regarding the district court’s dismissal of the Rule 60(b) motion, any challenge to the dismissal is abandoned. Arriola has abandoned his sole issue on appeal by failing to brief it, and, regardless, because his Rule 60(b) motion raised a new claim for relief, it was a successive § 2255 motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction, as he failed to receive the requisite authorization from this court. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); *see also United States v. Key,*205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Consequently, Arriola has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his Rule 60(b) motion. *See Hernandez v. Thaler,*630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
A.W. v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160140

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD., Mobis Alabama, L.L.C., Appellants v. AUTOLIV ASP, INC., Appellee

2016-1896

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 7, 2017

Paul Whitfield Hughes, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by Andrew John Pincus, Jonathan Weinberg.

Keith E. Broyles, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Wesley Achey, Pamela Coun-GILL.

(O’Malley, Wallach, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 99.1



LOGO



CONTACT: Leonard Ferro

(336) 665-3037



Galey & Lord Announces Confirmation of Plan of Reorganization and

Appointment of John J. Heldrich as President and CEO



GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, FEBRUARY 10, 2004  Galey & Lord, Inc. (the Company) (OTC BB: GYLDQ) announced today that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court has confirmed the Companys Plan of
Reorganization. Following the confirmation, the Company expects to emerge from Chapter 11 within the next ten days. Arthur C. Wiener, the Companys Chairman and CEO, commented, This has been a long and arduous process, but the new Galey
& Lord will emerge with a strong balance sheet that will enable it to execute both its long-term and short-term strategies. I would like to thank the Companys customers, suppliers and employees for their continued support during this most
difficult period. Without their loyalty, it would not have been possible to reach this point.



As previously announced, upon the Companys emergence, Mr. Wiener will be retiring. Upon emergence, John J. Heldrich, currently Executive Vice President of Galey & Lord and President of Swift Denim, will be
elected President and CEO of Galey & Lord and will serve on the Board of Directors of the emerged company. Mr. Wiener stated, I have had the good fortune to have worked with John for the last six years, and during that time have come to
admire both his business and personal skills. I have all the faith in the world that John will lead the Company forward in this very competitive environment.



Galey & Lord and its foreign affiliates, are leading global manufacturers of textiles for sportswear, including cotton casuals, denim,
and corduroy.



The Company believes it is the market leader in producing
innovative woven sportswear fabrics as a result of its expertise in sophisticated and diversified finishing. Fabrics are designed in close partnership with a diversified base of customers to capture a large share of the middle and high end of the
bottomweight woven market. The Company also believes it is one of the worlds largest producers of differentiated and value-added denim products. The Company and its foreign subsidiaries employ approximately 3,300 employees in the United States
and 215 employees in its owned foreign operations. The Company and its joint venture interests operate in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Asia, Europe and North Africa.



Until emergence, the Companys current trading symbol on the OTC BB is GYLDQ.



SAFE HARBOR REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS



Forward-looking statements made herein are made pursuant to the safe harbor provision of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause the actual results to be different from those contemplated. We assume no obligation to
update the forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions, or changes in factors affecting such statements.



######
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

LEVAR LEE SPENCE, : No. 43 MAP 2022 

Appellant 

V. 

THOMAS L. MCGINLEY, COAL 

TOWNSHIP SCI SUPERINTENDENT, DR. 

LAUREL R. HARRY, DEPT OF CORR 

ACTING SEC'Y, MICHELLE ANN HENRY, 

PA ATTY GEN (CHIEF CUSTODIAN), AND 

JOSH SHAPIRO, PA GOVERNOR, 

Appellees 

ORDER

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 319 

MD 2021 dated February 18, 2022 

PER CURIAM DECIDED: February 22, 2023 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2023, the order of the Commonwealth Court 

is AFFIRMED.
#### IN RE: Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner. In re: Raymond Edward Chestnut, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner.

No. 17-1027, No. 17-1030

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Edward Chestnut petitions for writs of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). He seeks orders from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has issued a final order denying relief on the § 3582(c)(2) motion and dismissing the § 2255 motions. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided these motions, we deny the mandamus petitions and supplemental mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITIONS DENIED*