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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1.000
<CASH>                          6,363
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   3,863
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                10,226
<PP&E>                          1,761,536
<DEPRECIATION>                  114,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,795,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           23,673
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      867,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,795,247
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                274,980
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   88,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                67,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                1,229
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              64,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 52,965
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             52,965
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 984
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    53,949
<EPS-BASIC>                   0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.89



</TABLE>
Destina CANTWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2481

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
No. 29,904.

#### The State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Augusta Smith, *Appellant.*

(299 Pac. 637.)

Opinion filed June 6, 1931.

*Harry Warren*and *James G. Sheppard,*both of Fort Scott, for the appellant.

*Roland Boynton,*attorney-general, and *Frank O’Brien,*county attorney, for the appellee; *Ernest E. Blincoe,*of Fort Scott, of counsel.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

Augusta Smith was found guilty of keeping a house of prostitution in violation of R. S. 21-938. She has appealed and contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. We deem it unnecessary to incorporate the evidence in this opinion. We have examined it and find an abundance to sustain the verdict.

Appellant contends that the court unduly restricted the cross-examination of some of the state’s witnesses. After testifying to the immoral conduct and appellant’s connection with maintaining the place, and the fact that men frequently visited the place for immoral purposes, some of the witnesses objected to giving the names of the men. The court did not require them to do so. That was a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and under the circumstances disclosed by the record we find no error in the ruling.

Appellant contends that incompetent, prejudicial evidence was received over her objection. Appellant and one Itha Moore were jointly charged with maintaining the place. There was evidence that both of them actively participated in conducting the place and divided the proceeds on an equal basis. The evidence objected to was the conduct of Itha Moore at a time when the appellant was not present. In view of the fact that the two were jointly charged, *254and there was evidence of their concerted interest in maintaining the premises, there was no error in the ruling.

Finally, appellant argues that the testimony of some of the state’s witnesses should not have been given credence because of their obvious bias and prejudice against appellant. The weight to be given to the testimony of the witnesses was for the jury and the trial court.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Case 4:05-cv-00453-Y Document 14 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 155
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00453-Y Document 14 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 156
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00453-Y Document 14 Filed 07/12/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 157
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00453-Y Document 14 Filed 07/12/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 158
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00453-Y Document 14 Filed 07/12/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 159
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00453-Y Document 14 Filed 07/12/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 160
Exhibit 23.1 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in(i) the Registration statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-7070, 333-62708, 333-73878, 333-112670, 333-111448, and 333-105015) of GlobalSantaFe Corporation, (ii) the Post Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to RegistrationStatement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-70268) of GlobalSantaFe Corporation and (iii) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-127168) of GlobalSantaFe Corporation of our report dated March 6, 2006relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 6, 2006 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Houston, Texas 

March 6, 2006
Richard M. BOOMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4151

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Warren CIRAVOLA

No. 2018-KH-1019

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WASHINGTON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and he fails to show a particularized need for the requested documents. *State ex rel. Bernard v. Cr.D.C.* , 94-2247 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174. His remaining claims are repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.35

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                 TRUST UNDER SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                               NONQUALIFIED PLANS


WHEREAS the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Santa Fe
International Corporation ("Board") having been expressly authorized by the
Board, has effective November 22, 1999, authorized and approved an amendment of
the definition of "Change of Control" contained within the Trust Under Santa Fe
International Corporation Nonqualified Plans ("Trust Agreement") to address a
"merger of equals" transaction; and

WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan authorizes the Board in this instance to amend
the Trust Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Trust Under Santa Fe International Corporation Nonqualified
Plans which was entered into January 3, 1995 and which was previously amended
effective March 22, 1997, is hereby amended effective November 22, 1999 as
follows:

1.   A new subparagraph (vi) of Section 13(a) "Change of Control" thereof is
     ADDED to the Trust to read as follows:

         (vi) there is consummated a `merger of equals' (which for purposes of
         this subsection shall mean a merger with another company of relatively
         equal size) to which the Company is a party as a result of which the
         persons who were equityholders of the Company immediately prior to the
         effective date of such merger shall have beneficial ownership of less
         than 55% of the combined voting power for election of members of the
         Board (or equivalent) of the surviving entity or its parent following
         the effective date of such merger, provided that the Board shall have
         authority to increase said percentage as may in its sole discretion be
         deemed appropriate to cover a specific transaction.

Dated:  December 1, 1999



By: /s/ Cary A. Moomjian                   By: /s/ Joe O. Long
    ------------------------------------       ---------------------------------
    Santa Fe International Corporation         Wachovia Bank, N.A.
Marko and Erica Jill BACA, et al. v. SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY, State of Louisiana

NO. 2019-C-0149

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Denied.
September 30, 2018 December 31, 2017

Assets

Cash and Cash Equivalents 950,560 $ 1,613,124 $ 

Investments in U.S. Treasury Obligations 4,624,633,653 B 4,454,235,266 A

Accrued Interest Receivable 21,932,177 21,893,987 

Premium Receivable 158,551,120 340,565,000 

Other Receivables 74,757,782 B 30,011,417 A

Prepaid Expenses - - 

General Property, Equipment, and Software, Net 64,165 77,914 

Total Assets 4,880,889,457 $ 4,848,396,708 $ 

Liabilities and Insurance Fund

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses 370,753 $ 678,547 $ 

Farm Credit Insurance Fund

 Unallocated Insurance Fund Balance 4,880,518,704 4,671,886,526

Allocated Insurance Fund Balance 0 175,831,635

Total Insurance Fund 4,880,518,704 $ 4,847,718,161 $ 

Total Liabilities and Insurance Fund 4,880,889,457 $ 4,848,396,708 $ 

September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Comparative Statement of Financial Condition

(Unaudited)

A - Reflects a reclassification entry debiting Other Receivables and crediting Investments in U.S. 

Treasury Obligations for $30,011,417.39 due to maturity of an investment security at 12/31/2017 

which fell on a weekend. The settlement date was not until January 2018.

B - Reflects a reclassification entry debiting Other Receivables and crediting Investments in U.S. 

Treasury Obligations for $74,757,781.71 due to maturity of an investment security at 09/30/2018 

which fell on a weekend. The settlement date was not until October 2018.
Calendar Year to Date Calendar Year to Date

September 30, 2018 September 30, 2017

Income

Premiums 158,551,120 $ 254,854,475 $ 

Interest Income on Investments 52,904,292 42,071,702 

Total Income 211,455,412 $ 296,926,177 $ 

Expenses

Administrative Operating Expenses 2,823,234 $ 2,907,828 $ 

$ 2,907,828 2,823,234 $ 

Net Income 208,632,178 $ 294,018,349 $ 

Balance at January 1, 2018 $ 4,847,718,161

Payment to AIRAs Accountholders (175,831,635)

Net Income 208,632,178 

Balance at September 30, 2018 4,880,518,704 $ 

(Unaudited)

Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Comparative Statement of Revenue and Expense

Period Ended September 30, 2018 and September 30, 2017

Statement of Changes in Insurance Fund

Period Ended September 30, 2018

(Unaudited)
EX PARTE Preston Jerome TAYLOR

CR-16-1194

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
Z.G. v. ETOWAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160919

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 23, 2018

Affirmed.
Case 5:17-cv-00017-EJD Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:17-cv-00017-EJD Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:17-cv-00017-EJD Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 3
Daniel CRUZADO MARTINEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0835

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 23, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60237

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISMAEL VASQUEZ-FONSECA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:03-CR-113-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ismael Vasquez-Fonseca appeals from his guilty-plea

conviction of illegally reentering the United States after having

been deported and after having been convicted of an “aggravated

felony,” a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Vasquez contends that

the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress

evidence of his deportation and to dismiss the indictment. He

argues that his 1996 deportation proceeding violated the Due

Process Clause because the immigration judge erroneously failed

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-60237

-2-

to inform him that he was eligible for discretionary relief from

deportation under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (“INA”). Vasquez concedes that his contention is

foreclosed by this court’s case law, but he raises the claim to

preserve it for further review.

An immigration judge’s error in failing to inform an alien

of eligibility for forms of discretionary relief under the INA

does not violate the alien’s right to due process. United States

v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 537 U.S. 1135 (2003). The district court did not err by

denying Vasquez’ motion to suppress evidence of his deportation

and to dismiss his indictment. 

AFFIRMED.
Derrick J. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4437

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Johnson v. State*, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla. 2011) ; *McDonald v. State*, 133 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ; *Hughes v. State*, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Brown v. State*, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; *Dorsett v. State*, 166 So.3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ; *Shivers v. State*, 96 So.3d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; *Atwater v. State*, 781 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ; *Robinson v. State*, 642 So.2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
CERTIFICATION OF 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Desmond Ross, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Quantum Solar Power Corp (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: (i)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the fiscal Quarter ended September 30, 2008, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  By:/s/ Desmond RossName:Desmond RossTitle:Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:November 14, 2008 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Dale H. ESTEVEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0930

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

EMANUAL DELEON FIELDS, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. §

§ No. 3:06-cv-236-N-BN

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

§

Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO REQUEST DOCUMENTS

Petitioner Emanual Deleon Fields has filed a motion seeking free copies of “[a]ll

court opinions and orders disposing of the claims advanced in [this action].” See Dkt.

No. 45. District Judge David C. Godbey has referred the motion to the undersigned

United States magistrate judge. See Dkt. No. 46.

Petitioner states that he needs the opinions and orders requested to “attach to

his § 2254 motion in the United States Court of Appeals [for the] Fifth Circuit.” Id.

Petitioner claims that he is indigent and does not have funds to pay for copies. Id. 

28 U.S.C. § 2250 provides that:

If on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an order has been made

permitting the petitioner to prosecute the application in forma pauperis, the

clerk of any court of the United States shall furnish to the petitioner without

cost certified copies of such documents or parts of the record on file in his office

as may be required by order of the judge before whom the application is pending.

Under this statute, a habeas petitioner is entitled to free copies of records on file in the

federal proceeding only where ordered by the presiding judge. But “[a]n indigent has

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00236-N Document 47 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID 250
no absolute right to a free copy of his transcript merely to search for possible defects.”

Doyal v. United States, 456 F.2d 1292, 1293 (5th Cir. 1972) (citing Colbert v. Beto, 439

F.2d 1130 (5th Cir. 1971); Bennett v. United States, 437 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1971);

Skinner v. United States, 434 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1970)). 

Petitioner’s application for federal habeas relief was denied by judgment entered

May 16, 2007. See Dkt. No. 20. The judgment was affirmed by the United States Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on November 12, 2009. See Dkt. No. 36. Petitioner does

not have a case pending before this Court or before the Court of Appeals. His two

requests to file successive habeas petitions were denied. See In re: Fields, No. 12-40918

(5th Cir. Oct. 3, 2012); In re: Fields, No. 13-10905 (5th Cir. Nov. 8, 2013).

Petitioner was provided with copies of opinions and orders entered in this action

on each date of entry. He has not shown that additional copies of the Court’s opinions

and orders are necessary to decide an issue pending before this Court or before the

Court of Appeals. He is therefore not entitled to additional copies at government

expense.

Petitioner’s motion for free copies of the Court’s opinions and orders [Dkt. No.

45] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 3, 2014

_________________________________________

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00236-N Document 47 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID 251
Case 4:05-cv-00553-A Document 17 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 119
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00553-A Document 17 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 120
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 7200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01517]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the 
Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation 
Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, February 25, 
2025, at the Commission's headquarters and via videoconference.

PLACE: The meeting will be conducted by remote means (videoconference) 
and at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549. Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on 
the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to 
the public via webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov. This 
Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the 
Commission may attend the meeting.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda for the meeting includes matters 
relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging 
businesses and their investors under the federal securities laws.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: January 16, 2025.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-01517 Filed 1-16-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```