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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            6477
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       41
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6517
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               88
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        6430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6517
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   692
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    404
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2



                       Certification of CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Niagara Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Raymond Rozanski, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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



/s/ Raymond Rozanski
---------------------------
Raymond Rozanski
Vice President & Treasurer
November 14, 2002



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
John Edward SANDERS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1396

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 15, 2019.

John Edward Sanders, Jr., in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Natalia Costea, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On March 13, 2019, this Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court's denial of appellant John Edward Sanders Jr.'s rule 3.800 motion that sought to correct an allegedly illegal sentence. Our opinion contained an order to show cause why Sanders should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any further *pro se* appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his criminal sentence in circuit court case number F95-6485.

Sanders responded to the order to show cause on April 15, 2019. Sanders's response raises no new information or argument for our consideration. Accordingly, we conclude that Sanders has not shown good cause to justify further *pro se* filings of appeals, petitions, motions, or other proceedings with this Court.

It is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the Court of the Third District Court of Appeal shall refuse further filings related to case number F95-6485; provided, however, that filings related to case number F95-6485 may be accepted by the Clerk if such filings have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing.

Any further and unauthorized *pro se* filings by Sanders will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.

Order issued.
Angela LANDRON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4791

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,751,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,751,567
<PP&E>                                      22,395,185
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,424,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,722,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,198,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,523,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,722,075
<SALES>                                     24,744,547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,909,365
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,184,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             23,724,973
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,724,973
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.63


</TABLE>
Martin Martinez MAGANA, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-8899.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, denied.
EX-35.1
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.

J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-S3

I, David M. Friedman, a duly authorized officer of American Home Mortgage
Servicing, Inc., as servicer (the "Servicer"), pursuant to the Mortgage Loan
Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2006, by and among J.P.
Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., the Servicer and American Home Mortgage Corp.
(the "Agreement"), hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period")
and of the Servicer's performance under the Agreement and any applicable
Reconstitution Agreement (as such term is defined in the Agreement) has been
made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement and any applicable Reconstitution
Agreement (as such term is defined in the Agreement) in all material respects
throughout the Reporting Period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 10th
day of March, 2008.



By: /s/ David M. Friedman
Name: David M. Friedman
Title: Executive Vice President
Exhibit 21.1

Abraxis BioScience, Inc.

List of Subsidiaries

The following is a list of subsidiaries of Abraxis BioScience, Inc., omitting some subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate, would not constitute
a significant subsidiary.



|                                                       |  |                   
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------
|Name                                                   |  | Where Incorporated
|                                                       | 
|Abraxis BioScience, LLC                                |  | Delaware          
|                                                       | 
|Abraxis BioScience Canada, Inc.                        |  | Ontario, Canada   
|                                                       | 
|Abraxis BioScience International Holding Company, Inc. |  | Delaware          
|                                                       | 
|Abraxis BioScience International B.V.                  |  | Netherlands       
|                                                       | 
|Abraxis BioScience International C.V.                  |  | Netherlands       
|                                                       | 
|Abraxis BioScience Switzerland GmbH                    |  | Switzerland       
|                                                       | 
|South African Pharmatech (Pty) Limited                 |  | South Africa      
|                                                       | 
|Chicago Bioscience, LLC                                |  | Illinois          
|                                                       | 
|Resuscitation Technologies, LLC                        |  | Delaware          
|                                                       | 
|VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc.                                |  | California        
|                                                       | 
|Jefferson XIII, LLC                                    |  | Delaware          
|                                                       | 
|Abraxis Bioscience Limited                             |  | United Kingdom    
|                                                       | 
|Abraxis Bioscience Australia Pty Ltd.                  |  | Australia         
|                                                       | 
|Drug Source Company, LLC                               |  | Delaware          
|                                                       | 
|Cenomed BioSciences, LLC                               |  | Delaware
803 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley CA 94710 ∙ www.ramsey-ehrlich.com ∙ Tel: (510) 548-3600 ∙ Fax: (510) 291-3060

April 11, 2017

The Honorable William H. Alsup

U.S. District Judge

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 8 – 19th Floor

450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

Dear Your Honor:

We represent Anthony Levandowski—a non-party to this lawsuit—purely in his 

personal capacity. As ordered by this Court this afternoon, we hereby submit a 

brief response to Waymo LLC’s letter brief (Dkt #212).

As this Court knows, to date, we have appeared in this case and were granted a 

motion to intervene only for the limited purpose of briefing and arguing a motion 

to modify privilege log requirements based on the Fifth Amendment, which the 

Court denied yesterday afternoon. (Dkt #202). 

We have played no role, however, in any discussions or arguments that led to the 

Court’s expedited discovery order that now governs the parties’ obligations in this 

case. See Order re Expedited Discovery (Dkt #61). As such, the only authority we 

are in a position to consult regarding the Court’s intentions for expedited 

discovery is the express language of the Expedited Discovery Order, which we 

have now endeavored to read carefully.

This last Sunday, on behalf of Mr. Levandowski, we accepted service of a 

subpoena calling for his testimony this coming Friday morning. The subpoena 

also purported to make six broadly-framed document requests on Mr. 

Levandowski. After reading the express terms of this Court’s Expedited 

Discovery Order, we objected to the document requests as being beyond the scope 

of expedited discovery authorized by this Court.

To be sure, the Order allows the parties to depose declarants and other officers, 

directors, and employees of the parties. (Dkt #61 ¶¶ 1 & 5). But no provision 

allows a party to subpoena documents from non-party deponents on an expedited 

basis. By its express terms, the Order only imposes document-production 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 220 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 2
Letter Brief for Judge Alsup

April 11, 2017

Page 2

803 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley CA 94710 ∙ www.ramsey-ehrlich.com ∙ Tel: (510) 548-3600 ∙ Fax: (510) 291-3060

obligations (on this emergency 96-hour notice basis or on any other schedule) on 

the parties, and the parties alone. 

Specifically, as to the depositions noticed by defendants, only the “plaintiff must 

produce specific documents 24 hours before that deposition.” (Dkt #61 ¶ 2). And, 

as relevant here, for any depositions noticed by the plaintiff, paragraph 6 of the 

Order establishes that “defendants must produce specific documents 24 hours 

before that deposition of defendant personnel.” (Dkt #61 ¶ 6).

Respectfully submitted,

//s//

Miles Ehrlich

Ismail Ramsey

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 220 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1428

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1428 EH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Fish and 

3 Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

5 Section 10(a)(1) of the National Fish and Wildlife 

6 Foundation Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 3709(a)(1)) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 2001 through 2005’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2006 through 2010’’. 

9 SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF NOTICE REQUIREMENT LIMITED 

10 TO GRANTS MADE WITH FEDERAL FUNDS. 

11 Section 4(i) of the National Fish and Wildlife Foun12 dation Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 3703(i)) is amended 

13 by striking ‘‘grant of funds’’ and inserting ‘‘grant of Fed14 eral funds in an amount greater than $10,000’’. 

15 SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO USE FEDERAL 

16 FUNDS TO MATCH CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO 

17 RECIPIENTS OF NATIONAL FISH AND WILD18 LIFE FOUNDATION GRANTS. 

19 Section 10(a)(3) of the National Fish and Wildlife 

20 Foundation Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 3709(a)(3)) is 

21 amended by inserting ‘‘, or to a recipient of a grant pro22 vided by the Foundation,’’ after ‘‘made to the Founda23 tion’’. 
3

•HR 1428 EH 

1 SEC. 5. REPEAL. 

2 Effective September 30, 2015, section 10(a)(1) of the 

3 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act 

4 (16 U.S.C. 3709(a)(1)) is hereby repealed.

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2005. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1428

AN ACT

and Wildlife Foundation, and for other purposes. 

To authorize appropriations for the National Fish
EX-10.5






Exhibit 10.5




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “First Amendment” is made effective as of
the 31st day of December, 2008 (the “Effective Date”) by and between BEAZER HOMES USA, INC., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company” ) and ALLAN P. MERRILL , an individual resident of the State of
Georgia (the “Executive”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have heretofore entered into an Employment Agreement made
effective as of May 1, 2007 (the “Existing Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend certain provisions of the Existing
Agreement as provided herein.



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements
herein contained, the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:



     1. Section 11 is hereby amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the Section:




11. Special Provision Regarding Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code. The Executive shall be deemed to have a “termination of employment”
under this Agreement for purposes of entitling him to any “nonqualified deferred
compensation” that is subject to the requirements of Section 409A only to the
extent the Executive has a “separation from service,” as that term is defined in
Section 409A and the applicable Treasury regulations applying all of the default
rules thereunder.



     2. Except as and to the extent amended hereby, the Existing Agreement is hereby ratified and
confirmed in all respects and remains in full force and effect in accordance with the terms
thereof. By signing below, the Company and Executive hereby (i) consent to all of the terms of
this First Amendment, (ii) ratify and confirm their respective obligations under the Existing
Agreement, and (iii) agree that said obligations are and shall remain in full force and effect, as
amended by this First Amendment.



 









 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT effective
as of the date first written above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	BEAZER HOMES USA, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Ian J. McCarthy 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 

	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Ian J. McCarthy	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	President and CEO	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Allan P. Merrill	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Allan P. Merrill
Elmer Leon CARROLL, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-10418.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2013.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
In the Matter of Disbarment of Martha Veager KIM.

No. D-2700.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Disbarment order entered.
#### Edward Lonnie MCCARROLL; Samuel C. Ross, Plaintiffs—Appellants, and Michael Lucas, Plaintiff, v. Theodis BECK; Juanita Baker; Offender Population Unified Systems, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-6061.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 18, 2004.

*902Edward Lonnie McCarroll, Samuel C. Ross, Appellants pro se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished her curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Edward Lonnie McCarroll and Samuel C. Ross appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See McCarroll v. Beck,*No. CA-03-863-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 2003). The court has also received twelve motions seeking to add a total of fifteen individuals who were not parties to this case in the district court as parties to this appeal. We deny these motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Joseph WILKERSON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7237.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

*1796Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Stanley M. CHESLEY.

No. D-2731.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Stanley M. Chesley, of Cincinnati, Ohio, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
John E. HOWARD, III, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9010.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Tavoris HALL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9188.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Kamari Jamaal NELSON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-9050.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, denied.