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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,481                  46,387
<SECURITIES>                                   295,967                 325,304
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,044                  21,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,562<F1>              11,174<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               355,054                 404,002
<PP&E>                                       1,474,489               1,494,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                 210,900<F2>             192,576<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,040,443               2,090,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,673                  17,935
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                (1,374,492)<F3>          (1,343,547)<F3>
<COMMON>                                     3,142,210               3,197,210
<OTHER-SE>                                     232,052<F4>             219,103<F4>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,040,443               2,090,701
<SALES>                                         54,992                 112,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,103                 120,027
<CGS>                                           43,903                  54,355
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117,048                 123,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,945)                 (3,343)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,945)                 (3,343)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,945)                 (3,343)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)                       0
<FN>
<F1> Prepaid Expense
<F2> Investment in Securities
<F3> Accumulated Deficit
<F4> Unrealized Gain of Investments
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
No. 11-10441.

#### Alvera-Ramirez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 28, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-692

Lower Tribunal No. 18-3252

________________

Gordon Hales,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark

Blumstein, Judge.

Gordon Hales, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, C.J.
Gordon Hales appeals the trial court’s order issued on March 2, 2018

denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. Because Hales’ petition is an

attack upon his conviction for sexual battery upon a child and the life sentence

imposed on April 27, 2000 in Broward County case number 95-3149-CF-10A,

which was affirmed on direct appeal, see Hales v. State, 792 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2001), the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to rule

on the petition. Thus, the trial court should have dismissed Hales’ petition without

prejudice to allow him to file an appropriate motion or petition in the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit. See Hales v. State, 957 So. 2d 699, 699-70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)

(affirming the dismissal of Hales’ petition for writ of habeas corpus as the MiamiDade Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to review the legality of Hales’ conviction

entered in another county, without prejudice to allow Hales to file an appropriate

motion in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit); Calloway v. State, 699 So. 2d 849, 850

(Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (concluding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review

the legality of a conviction and sentence imposed in another circuit court).

We, therefore, reverse the order denying Hales’ petition with instructions to

the trial court to dismiss the petition without prejudice to allow Hales to file his

petition in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

2
ANY POST-OPINION MOTION MUST BE FILED WITHIN SEVEN

DAYS. A RESPONSE TO THE POST-OPINION MOTION MAY BE

FILED WITHIN FIVE DAYS THEREAFTER.

3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Torrance Deshun JOINER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12026 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 4, 2018)

Steven E. Butler, Adam W. Overstreet, U.S. Attorney Service — Southern District of Alabama, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before WILSON, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Shields, appointed counsel for Torrance Joiner in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Joiner’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards Board Annual Meeting

Thursday, April 14, 2022

1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. EST

Livestreamed on YouTube

Call to Order

• Amanda Grandjean, Chair, EAC Standards Board 

Welcoming Remarks 

• Thomas Hicks, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Chairman

• Donald Palmer, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Designated Federal Officer of the EAC 

Standards Board

• Amanda Joiner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Acting General Counsel - Membership 

Guidelines and Policies 

All Members of EAC Standards Board Sworn-In

• Donald Palmer, DFO - Oath of Office of all EAC Standards Board members

Determination of Quorum/Roll Call 

• Derrin Robinson, Secretary, EAC Standards Board 

Introductory Business

• Approval of Agenda

• Approval of Minutes of the June 17, 2021 EAC Standards Board Meeting 

• Appointment of Election Certification Committee 

Executive Board Election

• EAC to hold the election to fill Executive Board vacancies

General EAC Update

• Mark Robbins, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Interim Executive Director

E-Poll Book Program Update

• Jon Panek, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Testing and Certification Program Director
2

VVSG 2.0 Implementation Discussion

• Moderator – Rob Rock, Member, EAC Standards Board

• Panelists:

o Jon Panek, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Testing and Certification Program 

Director

o Traci Mapps, SLI Compliance

o Wendy Owens, Pro V&V

o Michael Walker, Pro V&V

o Ed Smith, Smartmatic

Subcommittee Reports

• VVSG – Rob Rock

• Grants & Resources – Andy Dowd

• Standards & Practices – Amanda Grandjean

• EAVS – Mandy Vigil

• Election Security – Dwight Shellman

Panel Discussion - Mitigating Supply Chain Issues

• Moderator – Jamie Shew, Member, EAC Standards Board

• Panelists:

o Ford Bowers, Printing United Alliance

o Chris Wlaschin, ES&S

o Jim Suver, Runbeck Election Services

Voter Registration System Security

• Amanda Grandjean, Chair, EAC Standards Board

Results of Executive Board Election

• Announcement of the results of the election

• Information on the Election of Officers of the Executive Board

New Member of Executive Board Sworn-In

• Donald Palmer, DFO - Oath of Office of Executive Board member

Closing Remarks and Adjournment

• Amanda Grandjean, Chair, EAC Standards Board

Adjournment
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon BAZAN, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-40132 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 3, 2018

Jimmy Eric Pardue, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bruce Edward Anton, Sorrels, Udashen *&*Anton, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ramon Bazan, III, appeals the 120-month sentence imposed on resentencing for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court granted Bazan's 28 U.S.C. § 2256 motion and vacated his original 240-month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2555-67, 2563, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).

Bazan contends that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause in ap*827plying the version of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at resentencing instead of the version in effect when the offense was committed. We do not decide whether the district court erred, because any error was harmless. *See United States v. Delgado-Martinez,*564 F.3d 750, 753 (5th Cir. 2009); *United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez,*488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court’s statements at resentencing indicate “that the district court had a particular sentence in mind and would have imposed it, notwithstanding the error.” *Delgado-Martinez,*564 F.3d at 753 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The judgment 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.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**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 Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Liu
      Dongping, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(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.




Dated: November
      14, 2008




By:
            /s/
                Liu DongpingName:
            Liu
                DongpingTitle:
            Chief
                Financial Officer (Principal Financial
                Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements of American Restaurant Partners,
L.P. at June 29, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1999
<CASH>                                           41925
<SECURITIES>                                     46135
<RECEIVABLES>                                   938429
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     415348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1245243
<PP&E>                                        36266705
<DEPRECIATION>                                15718216
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                30371382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11237510
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (6223502)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  30371382
<SALES>                                       28775870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              28775870
<CGS>                                          7665228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 26704851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1545184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 506193
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             506193
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    506193
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8649 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8649

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
   provide for a presumption of eligibility for benefits for certain 
 public safety officers who died of exposure-related cancers, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 2020

Mrs. Walorski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
   provide for a presumption of eligibility for benefits for certain 
 public safety officers who died of exposure-related cancers, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Joshua John Comeau First Responder 
Cancer Benefit Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. EXPOSURE-RELATED CANCER.

    Section 1201 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10281) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(o)(1) As determined by the Bureau, an exposure-related cancer 
resulting in the death of a public safety officer shall be presumed to 
constitute a personal injury within the meaning of subsection (a), 
sustained in the line of duty by the officer and directly and 
proximately resulting in death, if that public safety officer was 
exposed to or in contact with any known carcinogen, or carcinogenic 
substance or condition while at the scene of an accident, a fire, or 
any other rescue or public safety operation.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `exposure-related 
cancer' includes the following:
            ``(A) Mesothelioma.
            ``(B) Testicular cancer.
            ``(C) Multiple myeloma.
            ``(D) Leukemia.
            ``(E) Non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
            ``(F) Skin cancer.
            ``(G) Malignant melanoma.
            ``(H) Brain cancer.
            ``(I) Prostate cancer.
            ``(J) Colon cancer.
            ``(K) Stomach cancer.
            ``(L) Lung cancer.
            ``(M) Esophagus cancer.
            ``(N) Kidney cancer.
            ``(O) Bladder cancer.
            ``(P) Any other form of cancer that the Bureau may 
        determine appropriate.''.

SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 2 shall apply in the case of any 
public safety officer who died on or after January 1, 2018, as a result 
of an exposure-related cancer.
                                 <all>
```
EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2007-01, Rev. 2 

2005 VVSG Vol. 1 Section 3.2.2.1 (e) 

Date: 

 

May 23, 2007 

Question: 

For AutoMARK Technical Systems (ATS), is the current keypad design acceptable as 

shown? 

If the keypad is specifically designed for blind voters and not partially sighted voters, does 

it fall outside Section 3.2.2.1 (e)? 

Facts: 

If ATS states the buttons on the hardware are primarily for blind voters, would that make the 

requirement not applicable to the controls on the hardware device, but applicable to the controls 

displayed on the LCD screen, although all voters have the option of using the buttons on the 

hardware device if they choose so? 

There are alternatives to using the button controls, such as having the primary keypad functions 

duplicated on the LCD touch screen. Additionally these functions are also “spoken” to the voter via 

synthesized voice, thus satisfying the partial vision requirement. 

(See photos below) 
Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

Voluntary Voting System Guideline 2005 Volume 1 (version 1.0) 

Volume 1: Section 3.2.2.1 e Partial Vision

Buttons and controls on accessible voting stations shall be distinguishable by both shape 

and color. 

Conclusion: 

Suggested Interpretation - If the manufacturer states that the keypad buttons displayed on 

the hardware device are specifically for blind voters, and that the LCD screen is capable of 

meeting all visual and partial vision voter requirements, then the requirement in Section 

3.2.2.1 (e) is not applicable to the controls on the hardware device, since the controls on 

the LCD screen do satisfy the partial vision requirement. 

The EAC agrees with this interpretation provided that the manufacturer declare, in the 

system user documentation, that they are addressing blind voters needs via the key 

pad and partially sighted voters needs via the touch screen. 

The VVSG clearly delineates between "Partial Vision" and "Blindness" as two separate, 

but related criteria for testing. Even though the keypad has English text in white 

characters, the characters appear to be designed for the benefit of testers and installers, not 

the intended blind user. Note that the keys are all blue, which indicates that no attempt is 

made to visually distinguish the different keys - that is done by Braille or the shape of the 

key. This would appear to be consistent with a device designed for blind users. 

The keypad appears to be specifically designed for blind users and is therefore not subject 

to section 3.2.2.1. ATS provides a method for partially sighted voters to use the LCD panel 

2
to navigate the system. Without further clarifying information or the ability to measure 

font sizes and contrast, it is not possible to determine if the LCD panel meets the 

requirements of Section 3.2.2.1, but it appears to have the potential to do so. 

3
#### Leon Eugene MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. TURNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15686

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Leon Eugene Morris, Pro Se

Kevin Allen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Brown, J. Hernandez, Manski, M. Biggs, R. Striegel, C. M. Green, Crawford, G. Low

Scott Matthew Nenni, Esquire, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Guffee

Janet N. Chen, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Kevin Alen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee A, Cruz

Arthur B. Mark, III, Esquire, Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Special Appearance

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Leon Eugene Morris appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Morris did not exhaust administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (a prisoner must properly exhaust “which means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Sapp v. Kimbrell,*623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under which exhaustion may be effectively unavailable).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Morris’s motion for leave to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 40) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 41.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
ex107.htm


 


 


 


Loans Extension Agreement







Reference is made to the loans from Ms. Heung Mei Tsui to China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), the principal and accumulated interest totaled USD1,354,567 and USD30,667 respectively as of December 31, 2013. Due to the fact the Company temporarily did not have enough balance in its oversea account to repay the loans, both Ms. Tsui and the Company agreed to extend the loans to December 31, 2014. The Company shall  repay the principal and accumulated interest on December 31, 2014.


 


 


During the extension, if China Pharma’s oversea U.S. dollar balance is sufficient, it should repay the loans as soon as possible to Ms. Tsui.


 


 




 



	 	 
Creditor:Heung Mei Tsui


Debtor:China Pharma Holdings, Inc.


                    December 31, 2013