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


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         5,579,262
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  198,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,804,627
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,981,417
<PP&E>                                         1,897,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,162,537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,651,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,755,001
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          4,158,594
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,087,402
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,449,872)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,651,125
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,688,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (113,277)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,577,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,577,923)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,577,923)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7727

BRANDON L. ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MATTHEW ROBERTS, Correctional Officer (K-9 Unit); BRETT 

HUGHES, Supervising Officer (Sergeant),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District 

Judge. (7:13-cv-00560-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: March 13, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon L. Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon L. Robertson appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Robertson v. Roberts, No. 7:13-cv-00560-MFU-RSB (W.D. 

Va. July 7, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FREDERICK OWEN HAIMAN,

 Appellant,

v.

DEANNA LYNNELL 

SHUTES-HAIMAN,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00361-CV

Appeal from

383rd District Court

of County, Texas

(TC # )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it has jurisdiction 

of the appeal. Rule 26.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appeal is 

perfected in a civil case when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is 

signed, unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1. When a motion for new 

trial has been filed, notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the judgment is 

signed. Id. A notice of appeal is considered timely if filed within fifteen days of the due date 

and accompanied by a reasonable explanation for the failure to file on the due date. Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

Appellant is attempting to appeal an order signed on August 17, 2012. Appellant timely 

filed a motion for new trial. Thus, his notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than 
- 2 -

November 15, 2012. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until December 10, 2012. 

Because Appellant did not file the notice of appeal or a motion for extension of time within the 

time specified by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the 

appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

March 28, 2013

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alejandro GARCIA-BUSTAMANTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41251

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 9, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro Garcia-Bustamante *359(Garcia) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Garcia has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Garcia’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Garcia’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Tommy KOONCE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 13-7018.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Nathan A. RIVERA, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 12-9713.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12879]



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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and 
Negotiations

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice that the June 8, 1995 meeting of the Advisory Committee 
on Trade Policy and Negotiation will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 
p.m. The meeting will be closed to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 1:15 
p.m. The meeting will be open to the public from 1:15 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee of Trade Policy and Negotiation will 
hold a meeting on June 8, 1995 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting 
will be closed to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. The meeting 
will include a review and discussion of current issues which influence 
U.S. trade policy. Pursuant to Section 2155(f)(2) of Title 19 of the 
United States Code, I have determined that this portion of the meeting 
will be concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously 
compromise the development by the United States Government of trade 
policy, priorities, negotiating objectives or bargaining positions with 
respect to the operation of any trade agreement and other matters 
arising in connection with the development, implementation and 
administration of the trade policy of the United States. The meeting 
will be open to the public and press from 1:15 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. when 
trade policy issues will be discussed. Attendance during this part of 
the meeting is for observation only. Individuals who are not members of 
the committee will not be invited to comment.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for June 8, 1995, unless otherwise 
notified.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Four Seasons Hotel, located 
at 2800 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. unless otherwise notified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTRACT: Michaelle Burstin, Director of Public 
Liaison, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-
6120.
Michael Kantor,
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 95-12879 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
**Exhibit
      23.1**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 (File No. 333-107090) of Citadel Security Software Inc. of our report dated
      February 10, 2006, except for Note P to which the date is March 6, 2006,
      relating to the consolidated financial statements of Citadel Security
      Software Inc. which appear in this Form 10-K.






/s/
      KBA
      Group LLP


KBA
      Group
      LLP


Dallas,
      Texas


March
      27,
      2006
Otis MORRIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7133.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
FDIC ComE-IN

Jeremy Tobacman

April 24, 2014

Behavioral Welfare Economics 

of Consumer Credit
CFPB Data Point: Payday Lending, 3/

2
3

Mean Initial Loan Size = $357.8% of Borrowers Have a41% of Borrowers Incur PrFinance Charges > Initial Lo

Source: S
4

Source: S

Mean Initial Loan Size = $340% of Borrowers Have a D46.9% of Borrowers Incur Finance Charges > Initial Lo
Consumer Credit Transactions

5

Borrow.

Benefits 

b

Repayment, fees

possible default

Cost 

c
Preference and Choice

6

“Decision utility is about wanting; 

experienced utility is about enjoyment.” 

-- Danny Kahneman

 Indispensible source: Congdon, Kling, and Mullain

Policy and Choice: Public Finance Through the Lens of Behavioral Economics
Consumer Credit Transactions

7

Borrow.

Benefits 

b

Repayment, fees

possible default

True Cost 

c

 Experienced utility: 
Consumer Credit Transactions

8

Borrow.

Benefits 

b

Repayment, fee

possible defaul

Perceived Cost 

 Experienced utility:  Decision utility: 
Decision vs Experienced Utility

9

 Markets react to Decision Utility

 Decision Utility governs voluntary choice Choose to Borrow if ܾ൐ߛ

ܿ

 Strongest possible complementary assertion:

 Governments should make policy based on Expe

Utility Experienced Utility measures consumer welfare

 implies borrowing costs are underestim
Many Questions

10

 What are How can I use this fram

 Great questions! See the next slide

 Does this perspective criticize consumers who a

their best in a complicated market and world? No – Purely technocratic Also, consistent with Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler

 When is my train out of here again?

 Not yet!
Toward Practical Applications

11

 What are  : Infer from demand  : Difference between suffices



c often observed by policymakers in aggregate data

 Average interest, fees, and default-related costs

 Subjective costs ex ante: measured by reported inten

 Like Odysseus asking to be tied to the mast

 Subjective forecasts ex ante: measured by reported e

 Generalize across contexts?
Small-Dollar Credit:

Implications and Comments

12

 Firm profitability is separable from these conside Payday lending industry: low entry costs Demand-side prospects for possible competitors 

on cost advantages

 Installment credit vs payday loans and deposit adv

 Installment payments reveal information Installment loans have relatively higher appeal for peo

limited self-control, who are aware of the limited self

 But most literature supports unawareness

 Alternatives: promotion of saving and/or insuranc
Small-Dollar Credit 

Implications and Comments

13

 Many payday loan defaults occur after lots of inte

paid, consistent with underestimation of borrowi

 Demand is not always a good guide to consumer  Additional data, on forecasts, intentions, and aggr

outcomes, can help
14
15

Econ 101 Efficient Equilibrium

p*

q* Qu

Sup

Marginal P

Marginal 

Price

Consumer Surplus (CS)Producer Surplus (PS)

Total Surplus (TS) = CS+PS

Dem

Marginal Pri

Marginal S
16

Internalities

q1 q2 Qu

Supply

Demand=Marginal D

Optimal

Tax

Price

p1p2p3

Optimal Quantity Rule

Marginal Experie
EXHIBIT 13.1
 CERTIFICATION
 
  1.
    
    the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2008, furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:
March 26, 2009/s/ Colm Barrington

Colm BarringtonChief Executive OfficerBabcock & Brown Air LimitedDate:
March 26, 2009/s/ Gary DalesGary DalesChief Financial OfficerBabcock & Brown Air Limited
Exhibit 4.26
 English Translation
 Loan agreement
  Lender: Shenzhen Wentai Education Industry Development Co., Ltd. (Wentai Education)
 Borrower A: Dong Xu
 Borrower B: Qicai Du
   1.
    
    Borrowers A and B intend to collaboratively establish Shenzhen Wentai Investment Co.,
Ltd. (the Target Company), a limited liability company under the law of the Peoples
Republic of China, with a registered capital of RMB 30 million. After the incorporation of the
Target Company, Borrowers A and B will respectively hold 70% and 30% of the equity interest in
the Target Company.
 2.
    
    The Lender agrees to lend to the Borrowers, and the Borrowers agree to borrow from the
Lenders the loan specified in this Agreement, all of which shall be used as the registered
capital of the Target Company.
 Article 1 Definition
 1.1
    
    Unless otherwise specified, the following terms shall have the following meanings in this
Agreement:




---



##### 



Article 2 Loan
 2.1
    
    Loan
  Annex 1
 2.2
    
    Interest




---



##### 



2.3
    
    Repayment of loan
   Article 3 Taxation
  Article 4 Representations and Warranties
 4.1
    
    Representations and Warranties




---



##### 



4.2
    
    Additional Representations and Warranties
  Article 5 Miscellaneous
 5.1
    
    Effectiveness
  5.2
    
    Governing jurisdiction
  5.3
    
    Dispute Resolution
  5.4
    
    Assignment and Transfer
   5.5
    
    Amendment




---



##### 



5.6
    
    Entirety
  5.7
    
    Duplicates
  [Signature page to follow]




---



##### 



Shenzhen Wentai Education Industry Development Co., Ltd.
 [Company seal of Shenzhen Wentai Education Industry Development Co., Ltd. is affixed]
 Dong Xu
 /s/ Dong Xu Qicai Du
 /s/ Qicai Du
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11801]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement; 
Haleakala National Park, Hawaii; Notice of Availability

    Summary: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, as amended), the 
National Park Service, Department of Interior, has prepared a Final 
General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (FGMP/EIS) 
that describes and analyzes a proposal and two alternatives for the 
future management, use, and development of Haleakala National Park, 
Maui County, Hawaii.
    The General Management Plan calls for acquiring lands adjacent to 
the park found to contain significant natural or cultural resources; 
this also will permit improvements in visitor access. The plan also 
calls for developing new facilities and the upgrading of existing 
facilities to improve the quality of visitor services. These 
improvements are needed to accommodate the substantial increases that 
have occurred in Haleakala's visitation over the past few decades. 
Additional research programs are also called for to refine and 
supplement the existing resource base data.
    The Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 
(DGMP/EIS) was released for public review on May 3, 1994 and the public 
comment period closed on July 30, 1994. Fifteen written comments were 
received. The FGMP/EIS incorporates minor modifications and 
clarifications in response to some of these comments, although no 
significant new issues or concerns were surfaced. The same proposal and 
alternatives were evaluated in the DGMP/EIS and the FGMP/EIS.
    Supplementary Information: The no-action period on this final 
general management plan and environmental impact statement will extend 
for 30 days after Notice of its availability is published by the 
Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register.
    For copies of the FGMP/EIS, or for further information, please 
contact: Superintendent, Haleakala National Park, P.O. Box 369, 
Makawao, Maui 96768.

    Dated: April 11, 1995.
Patricia L. Newbacher,
Regional Director, Western Region.
FR Doc. 95-11801 Filed 5-11-95 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

408 

KA 11-01909 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GARRETT ARCHER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

ANTHONY J. CERVI, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L.

Michalski, A.J.), rendered May 26, 2011. The judgment revoked

defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of

imprisonment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie

County, for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment that revoked the

sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction of attempted rape in

the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35 [1]) and sentenced him

to a determinate term of imprisonment. Contrary to defendant’s

contention, Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion to

withdraw his plea upon revoking the original sentence of a period of

probation imposed by the court. “While a defendant must be afforded

the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea when the plea was induced

by a court’s sentencing promise and the court subsequently finds that

sentence to be inappropriate” (People v Lopez, 51 AD3d 1210, 1211

[emphasis added]), here the court made no promises regarding

defendant’s sentence. Thus, the court was not obligated to afford

defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see id.; People v

Carlton, 2 AD3d 1353, 1354, lv denied 1 NY3d 625; People v Hannig

[appeal No. 1], 258 AD2d 908).

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Lance Patrick BRUNSTING, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 13-6690.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2391

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −23)

On October 2, 2012, the Panel transferred 8 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See _F.Supp.2d_ (J.P.M.L. 2012). Since that time, 138 additional action(s) have been

transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. With the consent of that court, all such actions have

been assigned to the Honorable Robert L Miller, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Indiana and assigned to

Judge Miller.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Indiana for the reasons stated in the order of October 2, 2012, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert L Miller, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel
IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2391

SCHEDULE CTO−23 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

ALABAMA NORTHERN

ALN 2 13−00232 Dobbs et al v. Biomet Inc et al

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL

CAC 2 13−00613 Sally Hughes v. Biomet Inc et al

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN

CAN 3 13−00419 King et al v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC et al

CAN 3 13−00192 Haywood et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al

FLORIDA MIDDLE

FLM 2 13−00082 Laspina v. Biomet, Inc. et al

FLM 8 13−00117 Blette et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al

FLM 8 13−00183 Getman v. Biomet, Inc. et al

GEORGIA NORTHERN

GAN 1 13−00261 Battle v. Biomet, Inc. et al

KANSAS

KS 2 13−02043 Torchia et al v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC et al

NEVADA

NV 2 13−00172 Popick v. Biomet, Inc. et al

SOUTH CAROLINA

SC 3 13−00356 Goodwin v. Biomet Inc et al
CHO LEE LIN, petitioner, v. Charles WARREN, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison.

No. 12-9246.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
#### WALSH, Appellant, v. AMERICAN LUMBER CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 31, 1899.)

Action by William Walsh against the American Lumber Company.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, on argument.