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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,935
<PP&E>                                      19,340,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,888
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,482,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,711,348
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    600,000
<COMMON>                                    61,581,687
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,482,294
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  349,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (372,059)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (372,059)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              2,356,929
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,984,870
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR.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.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10106 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. LAMONDRICK JOHNSON Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-55-ALL Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Lamondrick Johnson has moved for leave to withdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Johnson has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
 

6
7
8
9
10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502) 

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com 

 Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. 237649) 

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com 

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887) 

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 

 Jordan R. Jaffe (Bar No. 254886) 

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4788 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED 

DOCUMENT: DOCKET NOS. 933-4, 

934-7 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 993 Filed 07/22/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) files this Administrative Motion to Remove a 

Document from ECF, submitted electronically on July 17, 2017, by Waymo. Specifically, Docket 

Nos. 933-4, 934-7 contain information that is governed by Docket No. 60, and that was 

inadvertently filed publicly. Waymo has already contacted the ECF Help Desk regarding this 

issue, and the ECF Help Desk has temporarily blocked public access to this filing. Waymo has 

also filed a corrected version of this document. 

For the foregoing reasons, Waymo respectfully requests that the Court grant Waymo’s 

Administrative Motion to Remove Dkt. Nos. 933-4, 934-7. 

DATED: July 21, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP 

By /s/Charles K. Verhoeven 

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 993 Filed 07/22/17 Page 2 of 2
Michael CAULFIELD, aka Big Mike, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7061.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12740]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1049-DR]

Louisiana; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Louisiana (FEMA-1049-DR), dated May 10, 1995, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective May 16, 1995.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance.)
Richard W. Krimm,
Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 95-12740 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-M
```
Virgil HALL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10310.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 34.2**

** **

**Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

First Data Resources LLC and

REMITCO LLC

 

We have examined management’s****assertion, included in the accompanying Report onAssessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that FirstData Resources LLC and its affiliate, REMITCO LLC (jointly, First Data)complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the remittance paymentplatform relating to the opening, listing, and depositing of remittancepayments mailed to post office boxes serviced by First Data (“the Platform”) asof and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for****the criteria set forth in Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv),1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(iii) and (v)-(xv),which First Data has determined are not applicable to the activities performedby them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.Management is responsible for First Data’s compliance with those servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertionabout First  Data’s compliance with theservicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute ofCertified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about First Data’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances.  Our examination includedtesting of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions andsecurities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of theservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether FirstData processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited tothe selected transactions and servicing activities performed by First Dataduring the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed todetermine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to ourtests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported byFirst Data during the period covered by this report for the selectedtransactions or any other transactions.****Webelieve that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on First Data’s compliancewith the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat First Data complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of andfor the year ended December 31, 2007 for the remittance payment platformis fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Ernst &Young LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 10, 2008

 

----
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1514 

To reserve a small percentage of the amounts made available to the Secretary 

of Agriculture for the farmland protection program to fund challenge 

grants to encourage the purchase of conservation easements and other 

interests in land to be held by a State agency, county, or other eligible 

entity, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. GERLACH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To reserve a small percentage of the amounts made available 

to the Secretary of Agriculture for the farmland protection program to fund challenge grants to encourage the 

purchase of conservation easements and other interests 

in land to be held by a State agency, county, or other 

eligible entity, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farmland Protection 

5 Program Challenge Grant Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1514 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TITLE-HOLDING OPTION UNDER 

2 FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

3 (a) ADDITIONAL TITLE-HOLDING OPTION; RESERVA4 TION OF FUNDS.—Section 1238I of the Farm Security 

5 Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838i) is amended by adding at 

6 the end the following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(d) OPTION FOR TITLE TO BE HELD BY ELIGIBLE

8 ENTITY.— 

9 ‘‘(1) RESERVATION OF FUNDS; PURPOSE.—Of 

10 the funds made available under section 1241(a)(4) 

11 for a fiscal year to carry out this section, the Sec12 retary shall use not less than 15 percent to make 

13 grants to support cooperative efforts by an eligible 

14 State agency, a county, and one or more other eligi15 ble entities to purchase conservation easements and 

16 other interests in eligible land under subsection (a), 

17 the title to which will be held by an eligible entity 

18 rather than the United States. 

19 ‘‘(2) COST SHARING.—Notwithstanding sub20 section (c)(1), the share of the cost of purchasing a 

21 conservation easement or other interest in eligible 

22 land borne by the United States under this sub23 section shall not exceed 25 percent. The State agen24 cy involved in the purchase shall contribute 25 per25 cent of the purchase price, the county involved in the 

26 purchase shall contribute 25 percent of the purchase 
3 

•HR 1514 IH 

1 price, and the other eligible entities involved in the 

2 purchase shall contribute 25 percent of the purchase 

3 price. 

4 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION ON USE OF GRANT FUNDS.— 

5 Federal funds made available under this subsection 

6 may not be used by grant recipients for administra7 tive purposes.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2005. 

Æ
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50044

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1258

HIGUERA ROAD, SAN ELIZARIO, TEXAS

WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND

IMPROVEMENTS THEREON,

Defendant,

BENJAMIN CHAGOYAN, ET AL.,

Claimants,

LILIA MENDOZA,

Claimant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-94-CV-386

_________________________________________________________________

August 27, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
-2-

Lilia Mendoza appeals the district court’s denial of her Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate a default judgment in a

forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881. Mendoza argues

that her motion should have been granted because she is uneducated,

her retained attorney filed an inadequate response to the complaint

for forfeiture and then withdrew from the case, the forfeiture

complaint failed to address the subdivision of the real property

named in the complaint, and the order of forfeiture violates

principles of double jeopardy. Having reviewed the record, we find

that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Mendoza’s motion to vacate the default judgment. See U.S. v. One

1978 Piper Navajo PA-31 Aircraft, 748 F.2d 316, 317 (5th Cir.

1984).

A F F I R M E D.
Case 4:05-cr-00307-SBA Document 30 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:05-cr-00307-SBA Document 30 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 07, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 07, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0235. H&E INNOVATION, LLC et al. v. SHINHAN BANK AMERICA (INC).
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16C01664
Exhibit 23.9


Consent of Independent Auditors





The Board of Directors


Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.:


We consent to the use of our report dated March 31, 2014, with respect to the balance sheet of WH Valle Di Oro 79, LLC as of December 31, 2013, the related statements of operations, members’ capital, and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements, incorporated by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-174742, No. 333-175002, No. 333-175559, No. 333-184752, and No. 333-192059) on Form S-3, the registration statements (No. 333-164928, No. 333-182269, and No. 333-197492) on Form S-8, the registration statement (No. 333-164926) on Form S-1/A and the registration statement (No. 333-186690) on Form S-4 of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. in reliance upon the reports of KPMG LLP, independent auditors, which report appears in amendment no. 1 to the December 31, 2014 annual report on Form 10-K of Kennedy Wilson Holdings, Inc.











/s/ KPMG LLP


Los Angeles, California


March 27, 2015
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

         I, Sheldon R. Rose, 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 Premier Nursing Products Corp. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2008 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-K fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Premier Nursing Products
Corp.

July 25, 2008                           By: /s/ Sheldon R. Rose
                                            -------------------
                                            Sheldon R. Rose,
                                            Principal Executive Officer and
                                            Principal Financial Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Premier Nursing Products Corp. and will be retained by Premier
Nursing Products Corp. and furnished to the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
J-S08035-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

COOPER SCOTT MILLER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 605 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 24, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-01-CR-0000904-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: MAY 8, 2023

I agree that we are bound by the en banc Majority decisions in Richards

and Moroz to treat Appellant’s prior acceptance of ARD as a first DUI offense. 

See Commonwealth v. Richards, 284 A.3d 214, 220-21 (Pa. Super. 2022), 

appeal granted, 518 MAL 2022 (Pa. Mar. 15, 2023) (en banc); 

Commonwealth v. Moroz, 284 A.3d 227, 233 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc).1 

However, for the reasons expressed in my Dissenting Opinions, I believe 

Richards and Moroz were wrongly decided. See Richards, 284 A.3d at 222-

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See also Commonwealth v. Verbeck, 290 A.3d 260 (Pa. 2023); 

Commonwealth v. Hummel, __ A.3d __, 1147 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. April 

4, 2023).
J-S08035-23

- 2 -

26 (Dissenting Op., McCaffery, J.); Moroz, 284 A.3d at 235-39 (Dissenting 

Op., McCaffery, J.). Thus, I am constrained to concur in this decision.

Judge Colins joins the Concurring Statement.
EXHIBIT 10.30


                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                            EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT,
                     DATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2001, BETWEEN
                FIRST HEALTH GROUP CORP. AND EDWARD L. WRISTEN


 THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the 31st day of December, 2003
 (the "Effective Date"), by and between First Health Group Corp. ("First
 Health") and Edward L. Wristen (the "Colleague").

 WHEREAS, First Health and Colleague have previously entered into a certain
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of January 1, 2001, under which First Health
 employs Colleague (the "Agreement"); and

 WHEREAS, First Health and Colleague desire to amend the Agreement to
 memorialize the parties' agreement to extend the term of the Agreement to
 March 31, 2004.

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein
 and in the Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
 acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

 1.   As of the Effective Date, Section 3(e) of the Agreement is hereby
      deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:

      3.   Term. The term of Employee's employment under this Agreement shall
      commence on  January 1,  2001 and  shall terminate  on March  31,  2004
      unless otherwise terminated in accordance with the terms hereof.

 2.   The parties ratify and affirm the Agreement and agree that it is valid
      as amended herein.  This Amendment will prevail over any conflict with
      the Agreement.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the duly authorized representatives of the parties have
 executed this Amendment effective on the day and year first written above.

 Colleague:                       First Health Group Corp.

 _____________________________    By:  _____________________________________
 Name: Edward L. Wristen               James C. Smith, Chairman of the Board

 Date: _______________________    Date: ____________________________________
EXHIBIT 15(a)





Texas Utilities Company:


We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of Texas Utilities Company and
subsidiaries (the "Company") for the periods ended September 30, 1998 and
1997, as indicated in our report dated November 12, 1998; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1998, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-55931,
333-27989, 333-32831 and 333-56055 on Form S-3; Registration Statement No.
333-47135 on Form S-4; and Registration Statements No. 333-32833, 333-32835,
333-32837, 333-32839, 333-32841, 333-32843, 333-45657 and 333-46671 on Form
S-8 of Texas Utilities Company.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
November 12,1998