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

<ARTICLE>                  5

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                    9,000
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            72,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                           1,559,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      1,640,000
<PP&E>                                2,099,000
<DEPRECIATION>                        1,352,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        2,526,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 2,815,000
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 5,608,000
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                192,000
<OTHER-SE>                           (6,313,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          2,526,000
<SALES>                                 356,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        356,000
<CGS>                                   294,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           735,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       32,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (411,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (411,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (411,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0


</TABLE>
Terry Lacarl JAMES v. ELDORADO CASINO SHREVEPORT JOINT VENTURE, Eldorado Shreveport #1, LLC and Eldorado Shreveport #2, LLC

NO. 2017-C-2091

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 9, 2018

Denied.
S.T., Father of J.C., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2201

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1

                     De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC

                CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS & CONSULTANTS



To Whom It May Concern:

We have issued our report dated January 24, 2011, accompanying the financial
statements of MMAX Media, Inc., on Form 10-K as of September 30, 2010, and
the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for the year then ended and from inception (May 30, 2006) through
September 30, 2010. We hereby consent to the reference to being named in
the section "Interest of Named Experts" and inclusion of the audit report
dated January 24, 2011, on Form 10-K to be filed with the US Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Signed,

/s/ De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC
-----------------------------------
    De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC
    January 24, 2011


                 2580 Anthem Village Dr., Henderson, NV 89052
             Telephone (702) 563-1600 o Facsimile (702) 920-8049
               Member Firm with Russell Bedford International
<PAGE>
Saitta 

J. 

a writ of habeas corpus is not available to prisoners who have completed 

the sentence imposed by the judgment of conviction and are no longer in 

custody. 2 See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6G); NRS 34.724(1); Jackson v. State, 

115 Nev. 21, 23, 973 P.2d 241, 242 (1999). Therefore, we conclude that the 

district court did not err in denying the motion, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

debt 

Pickering (4 -41 

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Neill Samuell 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2It does not appear that appellant's claims fit within the scope of a 

petition for a writ of coram nobis. See Trujillo v. State, 129 Nev. , 

310 P.3d 594, 601 (2013). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I947A
Gene Anthony ELSPERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-903

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Second Amendment to Rights Agreement



 Exhibit 4.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT dated as of
December 26, 2007 (this “Amendment”), between ELOYALTY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC (formerly known as ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C.), a New
Jersey limited liability company (the “Rights Agent”), to the Rights Agreement, dated as of March 17, 2000 (as amended by the Amendment to Rights Agreement, dated September 24, 2001, the “Rights
Agreement”), by and between the Company and the Rights Agent. 
 WHEREAS, the Company wishes to exercise its right to amend the
Rights Agreement pursuant to Section 27 thereof. 
 Accordingly, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Definitions. Each capitalized term defined in the Rights Agreement shall have the same meaning in this Amendment as in the Rights Agreement,
unless otherwise provided herein. 
 2. Amendment. The definition of “Acquiring Person” in Section 1(a) is amended by
replacing the last sentence thereof with the following sentence: 
 Notwithstanding anything in this Section 1(a) to the contrary, none
of Sutter Hill Ventures, Sutter Hill Entrepreneurs Fund (AI), L.P., Sutter Hill Entrepreneurs Fund (QP), L.P. and Sutter Hill Associates, L.P. or Tench Coxe, or their respective spouses, Associates, Affiliates, or Subsidiaries (collectively, the
“Sutter Hill Persons”), either individually, collectively or in any combination, shall be deemed to be an Acquiring Person; provided that all of the Sutter Hill Persons do not beneficially own, in the aggregate, more than 25%
of the shares of Common Stock then outstanding. 
 3. Rights Agreement. Except as amended hereby, the Rights Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect. 
 4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of
Delaware and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Delaware applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely within such State. 
 5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each such counterpart shall for all purposes be deemed to an
original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. 







 6. Descriptive Headings. Descriptive headings of the Sections of this Amendment are inserted for
convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions hereof. 
 [signature page follows]

  







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above
written. 
 eLOYALTY CORPORATION 
 By: /S/ Chris Min 
 Name: Chris Min 
 Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 

MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC 
 (formerly ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C.) 
 By: /S/ Thomas J. Blatchford

 Name: Thomas J. Blatchford 
 Title: Relationship Manager
H. Res. 742 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 29, 2023. 

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Dianne Goldman Berman 

Feinstein, a Senator from the State of California. 

Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions 

to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of 

the deceased. 

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased Senator. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Eddie James MOULTRIE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-2575

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 19, 2018

Eddie James Moultrie, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. *See**Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm'n* , 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Ray, Bilbrey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        60,253
<OTHER-SE>                      (60,253)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    0
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.00)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7222]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Childrens Hospital, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on 
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
in Room 3705, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue., NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 09-001. Applicant: Childrens Hospital, Los Angeles, 
CA 90027. Instrument: Transmission Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: 
FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 8503, 
February 25, 2009.
    Docket Number: 09-002. Applicant: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Denver, CO 80202. Instrument: Transmission Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 
8503, February 25, 2009.
    Docket Number: 09-003. Applicant: U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration, Laurel, MD 20708. Instrument: Transmission Electron 
Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 
74 FR 8503, February 25, 2009.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: March 23, 2009.
Christopher Cassel,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-7222 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3754 — Strabag/Dywidag)

(2005/C 111/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3754 — Strabag/Dywidag, to the following address:

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
Alberto HERNANDEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, O/B/O Esmeralda Beltran HERNANDEZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1400

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 07, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(First Chamber)

of 9 June 2005

in Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03 and C-316/03 to C-318/03 (References for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BC v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Free movement of goods - Distinction between medicinal products and food additives - Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import - Marketing authorisation)

(2005/C 193/06)

Language of the case: German

In Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03 and C-316/03 to C 318/03: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany), by decisions of 7 May and of 4, 3, 7 and 8 July 2003 respectively, received at the Court on 15 May and 11 and 24 July 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH (C-211/03), Orthica BV (C-299/03 and C-316/03 to C-318/03) and the Federal Republic of Germany, intervener: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003

OJ C 275 of 15.11.1003

----
Calvin POWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3418

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2017 Rehearing Denied January 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certifications of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Terra Tech Corp. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:





|1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                              





|                    |     |                         | 
|------------------- | --- | ----------------------- | 
|Date: June 27, 2017 | By: | /s/ Michael James       | 
|                    |     | Michael James           | 
|                    |     | Chief Financial Officer | 



The certifications set forth above are being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall they be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Terra Tech Corp. and will be retained by Terra Tech Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Antorey Davon WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1168

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 30, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
|KPMG LLP                             | Telephone |  | (604) 691-3000
|------------------------------------ | --------- |  | --------------
|Chartered
      Accountants          | Fax       |  | (604) 691-3031
|PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir
    Street | Internet  |  | www.kpmg.ca   
|Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3                 |           |  |               
|Canada                               |           |  |               

Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors ofBallard
Power Systems Inc.

We consent to the inclusion in this
annual report on Form 40-F of:

- our Report of Independent Registered Public
  Accounting Firm dated February 20, 2013 on the consolidated statements of
  financial position of Ballard Power Systems Inc. (the Company) as at
  December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 and the consolidated statements of
  comprehensive loss, changes in equity and cash flows for each of the years in
  the two-year period ended December 31, 2012;
- our Report of Independent Registered Public
  Accounting Firm dated February 20, 2013on the Companys internal control over
  financial reporting as of December 31, 2012,

each ofwhich is contained in this annual
report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

We also consent to incorporation by
reference of the above mentioned audit reports in the Companys Registration
Statements (No. 333-156553 and 333-161807 on Form S-8 and No. 333-180579 on Form
F-10, as amended).

Chartered AccountantsVancouver,
CanadaMarch 15, 2013



| | KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited
      liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMGnetwork of
      independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
      Cooperative(KPMG International), a Swiss entity.KPMG Canada
      provides services to KPMG LLP. | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

---
Exhibit 13.3

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of NKSJ Holdings, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: September 29, 2010

/s/ Hiroyuki YamaguchiBy:

Hiroyuki YamaguchiDirector
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40296 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCOS ANTUNES-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of TExas USDC No. L-02-CR-1111-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marcos Antunes-Ortiz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Antunes-Ortiz complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. Antunes-Ortiz contends 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Antunes-Ortiz thus contends that his sentence should not exceedNo. 03-40296 -2- the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Antunes-Ortiz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### PINNELL v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 8063.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Dec. 9, 1942.

Decided Dec. 12, 1942.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 20, 1943.

Max Turner, of New York City (Kenneth Carroad, of New York City, on the brief), for petitioner.

Louise Foster, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, and A. F. Prescott, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.

Before MARIS, JONES, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.'

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed for the reasons fully and satisfactorily set forth in its opinion.
Larry Alonzo GIBBS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2336

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jose Juan RIBAS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. TORAL BAKERY WHOLESALE CORP., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Paul Wesley BESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2473

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.