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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements contained in the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form
     10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,520,419
<SECURITIES>                                     1,415,702
<RECEIVABLES>                                      816,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                           100
<INVENTORY>                                        142,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   106,673
<PP&E>                                             292,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                     145,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,220,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,527,094
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                             21
<COMMON>                                           117,225
<OTHER-SE>                                          35,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,220,632
<SALES>                                            222,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   582,609
<CGS>                                              131,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      131,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   904,120
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13,748
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20,786
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (475,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (475,344)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (475,344)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.07)



</TABLE>
Opinion issued July 7, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 5
- 0 1112
- CV

——————————— BARBARA WILLIAMS , Appellant

V. VILLAGES OF BEAR CRE EK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Appellee

O n Appeal from the 189 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 201 5
- 3 1767

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Barbara Williams, proceeding pro se , has failed to timely file her appellate brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( a ), (d) , 38.8(a)(1). After being notified by
the Clerk of this Court on April 27 , 201 6 , that t h is appeal was subject to dismissal if2

she fail ed to timely file her appellate brief within ten days of the date of that notice , appellant failed to timely respond

. See id. 38.8(a) (1) , 42.3(c). Accordingly, w e dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Brown, and H uddl e
.
* 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. 96-50216 Conference Calendar

STATE OF TEXAS; COUNTY OF EL PASO, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus PAUL JAMES KOUMJIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-96-CR-125-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1996 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Paul James Koumjian, Texas prisoner #582874, has filed a motion for a certificate of probable cause/certificate of appealability and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis . This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Koumjian’s appeal must be dismissed for lack ofNo. 96-50216 - 2 - jurisdiction, as the district court’s order remanding the case to the state court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal. See Johnson v. Mississippi , 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). The motions are DENIED. We caution Koumjian that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Koumjian is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
DISMISSED.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3172

___________ Steven Lynn Freeman, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 28, 2003 Filed: March 5, 2003

___________ Before BYE, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Steven Lynn Freeman was convicted of rape and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, see Freeman v. State , 959 S.W.2d 400 (Ark. 1998), and Freeman's petition for postconviction relief was denied, as was his August 2000 petition to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, see Freeman v. State , No. CR 97-640, 2000 WL 1476656, at *1 (Ark. Oct. 5, 2000) (unpublished per curiam).* The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- In October 2001, almost a year after the denial of his August 2000 petition, Freeman filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, raising, as he did in the August 2000 petition, a claim under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Freeman argued equitable considerations should toll the one-year statute of limitations application to section 2254 petitions, because the evidence underlying his Brady claim established he was actually innocent. Even assuming the statute of limitations did not begin to run until Freeman obtained the Bradyevidence in March 2000, and the limitations period was tolled during the pendency of the state court proceeding from August through October 2000, Freeman still waited nearly seventeen months to pursue his claims in federal court. Given Freeman's failure to show wrongdoing by the State prevented him from bringing a timely petition, his reliance on actual innocence to invoke equitable tolling is misplaced. See Flanders v. Graves , 299 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 2002), petition for cert. filed , (Dec. 30, 2002) (No. 02-8255). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court * dismissing Freeman's petition as time-barred. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 570 

To prohibit the Department of Justice from tracking and cataloguing the 

purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2011 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BURR, 

Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. 

COBURN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Department of Justice from tracking and 

cataloguing the purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF TRACKING OR CATALOGUING 

4 FIREARMS PURCHASES. 

5 For fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal year thereafter, 

6 no Federal funds may be used to require a person licensed 

7 under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, to reVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:41 Mar 15, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S570.IS S570

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 570 IS

1 port information to the Department of Justice regarding 

2 the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns to the same person. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EX-10.40



 Exhibit 10.40 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT (“Amendment No. 1”) is made effective as of December 19, 2014 (the “Amendment No. 1 Effective Date”) by and between Epizyme, Inc., with a principal business address
at 400 Technology Square, 4th Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (“Epizyme”) and Eric Hedrick (“Consultant”). 

WHEREAS, Epizyme and Consultant entered into that certain Consulting Agreement dated October 27, 2014 (the “Agreement”);
and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the terms and conditions of the Agreement as described below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

	 	1.	Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by extending the Consultation Period (as defined in the Agreement) so that it continues until March 31, 2015. 


 

	 	2.	Continued Effectiveness. Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 


 

	 	3.	Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used in the Amendment No. 1 that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. 


 

	 	4.	Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, and all of which together will be deemed to be one and the same instrument. A
facsimile or pdf copy of this Amendment No. 1, including the signature pages, will be deemed an original. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
each party has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the Amendment No. 1 Effective Date. 
  

									
	EPIZYME, INC.				CONSULTANT
					
	By:		/s/ Robert Gould				By:		/s/ Eric Hedrick
	Name:		Robert Gould, Ph.D.				Print Name: Eric Hedrick, M.D.
	Title:		President and CEO
SCOT-23-0000559

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

________________________________________________________________

IN RE COCHRAN DONAHUE

________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ.,

Circuit Judge Browning and Circuit Judge Crabtree,

assigned by reason of vacancies)

On October 2, 2023 an individual using the name Cochran 

Donahue submitted to the appellate clerk’s office documents for 

filing, along with a motion for permission to proceed in forma 

pauperis. We construe the submission as a petition for a writ 

of mandamus for a declaratory judgment, confirming the identity 

of the individual, directed at an unnamed public official. Upon 

review of the document, we conclude that it fails to demonstrate 

a clear and indisputable right to relief from this court. See

State ex rel. Kaneshiro v. Huddy, 82 Hawaiʼi 188, 193, 921 P.2d 

108, 113 (1996). We further conclude that the information 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCOT-23-0000559

24-OCT-2023

11:36 AM

Dkt. 13 ORD
2

provided in the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, submitted 

under penalty of perjury, warrants granting the motion.

Therefore,

It is ordered that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis

is granted. The clerk shall waive the filing fee in this 

matter.

It is further ordered that the petition for a writ of 

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 24, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ R. Mark Browning

/s/ Jeffrey P. Crabtree
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Cinnamon Health Benefitsheadline bar Research
               test


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# Fourth **Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas** 

MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00195

- CR
Mattie Leora B ROWN , Appellant

v. The S TATE of Texas, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 2 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 361734 Honorable Jason Wolff , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 15, 2013
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
The trial court signed the order sought to be appealed on December 1 2 , 2012 . Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on January 11, 2013

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal
was due on January 28, 2013

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. Appellant did not file her notice of appeal
until March 19, 2013 ; appellant did not file a motion for extension of time. T his court issued an
order on April 16, 2013 directing appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be04

- 13

- 00195

- CR

- 2

- dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a written response wh ich did not resolve the jurisdictional defect. When a notice of appeal and motion for extension of time are not filed within the fifteen

day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3 , the appellate court lack s jurisdiction. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3; Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
# Euroopa Liidu C 93I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 093I |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 65. aastakäik28. veebruar 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 093I

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

65. aastakäik28. veebruar 2022

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2022/C 93 I/01 | Teatis importijatele — Väljaspool Ukraina valitsuse kontrolli olevatelt Donetski ja Luganski oblasti aladelt kaupade liitu importimine | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

2022/C 93 I/01

Teatis importijatele — Väljaspool Ukraina valitsuse kontrolli olevatelt Donetski ja Luganski oblasti aladelt kaupade liitu importimine

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

| 28.2.2022 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CI 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CI 93/1

---

Teatis importijatele

Väljaspool Ukraina valitsuse kontrolli olevatelt Donetski ja Luganski oblasti aladelt kaupade liitu importimine

(2022/C 93 I/01)

Nõukogu 23. veebruari 2022. aasta määrusega (EL) 2022/263, mis käsitleb piiravaid meetmeid vastusena valitsuse kontrolli alt väljas olevate Ukraina Donetski ja Luganski oblastite tunnustamisele ja korraldusele siirda nendele aladele Venemaa relvajõud, (1) kehtestati keeld importida Euroopa Liitu kõnealustelt aladelt pärit kaupu alates nimetatud määruse avaldamisele järgnevast päevast.

Liidu importijatel soovitatakse nõuetekohaselt kindlaks teha nende deklareeritud kaupade tegelik päritolu, kuna esineb oht, et kaupu, mille suhtes kohaldatakse eespool osutatud määruses sätestatud keeldu, imporditakse liitu Ukraina naaberriikidest, eelkõige Venemaalt ja Valgevenest. See võib puudutada CNi rubriiki 2701 kuuluvaid söetooteid ning CNi rubriikidesse 7201–7207 ja 7304, 7305 ja 7306 kuuluvaid terasetooteid. Võttes arvesse keelust kõrvalehoidmise ohtu, võib Venemaalt ja Valgevenest imporditud toodete vabasse ringlusse lubamisel nõuda tollile veenvate tõendite esitamist selle kohta, et need kaubad ei kuulu väljaspool Ukraina valitsuse kontrolli olevatelt Donetski ja Luganski oblasti aladelt pärit kaupade impordikeelu alla.

---

(1)  ELT L 42 I, 23.2.2022, lk 77.

---
[No. 20936-5-II.

Division Two.

September 12, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Bradley David Knox, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 96-1-00756-1, James D. Ladley, J., entered July 23, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Armstrong, J.; Morgan, J., concurring in the result only.
#### MORGAN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Terry G. Morgan against the city of New York.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### STUART, Respondent, v. STUART et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Action by Harriet Stuart against Victoria Stuart, individually, etc.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur, except HARDIN, P. J., not voting.
#### KUTYN et al. v. SANDROWITZ.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Paul Kutyn and others against Bernard J. Sandro witz. No opinion. Application denied, with §10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 359.
#### Jerome H. Diamond *v.*Augustus J. Simmons et al.

*Otto P. Witt,*in support of the petition.

*Richard B. Laschever,*in opposition.

Decided January 2, 1990

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 807, is denied.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 384 

AN ACT 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the United States Postal Service to issue a 

semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research. 

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

†S 384 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST 

2 CANCER RESEARCH. 

3 Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

Passed the Senate December 5, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 384 

AN ACT 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend 

cancer research. to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast the authority of the United States Postal Service
#### John H. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH; West Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-31270

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 5, 2011.

John H. Jones, Angola, LA, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John H. Jones, Louisiana prisoner # 313554, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. He also seeks appointment of counsel on appeal. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Jones is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5).

Jones does not appeal the district court’s dismissal of the West Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Department as a defendant. Rather, Jones argues that his appeal is taken in good faith and the district court should have dismissed his complaint only in part, not as to West Baton Rouge Parish, because the parish is considered an individual capable of being sued under Section 1983. The district court, however, dismissed Jones’s claims against West Baton Rouge Parish because Jones had failed to allege any facts against the parish which rose to the level of a constitutional violation, not because the parish is incapable of being sued. As Jones does not address the district court’s rationale for dismissing his Section 1983 action, he has waived any challenge he could bring to the dismissal of his Section 1983 action. *See Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Jones’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the IFP motion is denied, and the appeal is dismissed. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Jones’s motion for appointment of counsel is also denied. *See*
      *320
      *Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex.,*929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir.1991).

Jones is cautioned that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of the complaint both count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 388, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). He is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under Section 1915(g), he will be unable to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

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.