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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             457,064
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      366,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10,000
<INVENTORY>                                        354,889
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,453,000
<PP&E>                                              90,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                     111,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,580,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,106,590
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            37,986
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,306,786
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (48,599,000)
<SALES>                                            850,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   850,900
<CGS>                                              500,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,645,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (3,794,848)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,347,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,765,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,766,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        (800)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     35,336
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,731,920)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.16)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clavon Arnette, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Brewster, J.), rendered January 22,1981, convicting him of two counts of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*862Judgment affirmed.

Defendant failed to raise his objections as to the lawfulness of his detention by the police in the court of first instance and therefore failed, as a matter of law, to preserve his claim for appellate review (CPL 470.05; *People v Martin,*50 NY2d 1029; *People v Tutt,*38 NY2d 1011; *People v Chirasello,*99 AD2d 759). In any event, we find that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant. The arresting officers observed him running while approximately one quarter of a mile away from the scene of the robbery just a few minutes after the crime occurred. The officers also observed that defendant fit the eyewitness’ description of the robber as to height, skin color, and the presence of a mustache. In addition, defendant was carrying a coat similar to that described by the victim and behaved nervously when he spotted the police car. Under such circumstances, probable cause to arrest was present *(see, People v Brnja,*50 NY2d 366).

Likewise, we find unpersuasive defendant’s contention that the ensuing showup identification procedure was so unduly suggestive as to violate due process. It is clear from the record before us that the showup conducted by the police at the scene of defendant’s apprehension just minutes after the robbery, although far from perfect, did not expose defendant to a substantial risk of irreparable misidentification *(see, Neil v Biggers,*409 US 188; *People v Digiosaffatte,*63 AD2d 703). Moreover, the evidence clearly supports the hearing court’s determination that the victim’s observation of defendant for several minutes at close range and in broad daylight during the commission of the crime constituted an independent source for the in-court identification of defendant *(see, People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, *cert denied*459 US *SAI-, People v Pleasant,*54 NY2d 972, *cert denied*455 US 924; *People v Thompson,*97 AD2d 554). Finally, we note that the sentence imposed was well within the bounds of both the applicable statute and sound judicial discretion, and was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302; *People v Flores,*101 AD2d 657). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
#### Roger KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry POWERS, Director, Spartanburg County Detention Center; Teresa Speller, Head of Security at Spartanburg County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-7485.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 7, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

Roger Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, Holcombe, Bomar, Gunn & Bradford, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Kelley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Kelley that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Kelley failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation; he only restated the claims raised in his complaint.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that the failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Kelley has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *752the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 2

- 00 648

- CR

Edward Nathaniel Miller , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3013028 , HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS , JUDGE PRESIDING

Edward Nathaniel Miller seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for aggravated robbery.

Sentence was imposed on August 21, 2002. The deadline for filing a motion for new trial was therefore

September 20, 2002. Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a). The motion for n ew trial was filed October 3, 2002.

Because the motion for new trial was not timely, the notice of appeal filed October 3 was not timely. Tex.

R. App. P. 26.2(a). Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in

any ma nner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522

- 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).2 The appeal is dismissed.

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 7, 2002

Do Not Publish
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry Fonville, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J.—possession of forged instrument, third degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15498]



[[Page 38485]]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the names of the members of the 
Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney Killion, Director, Office of 
Human Resources, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street 
NW, Washington, DC 20573.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sec. 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, 
U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or 
more performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the 
initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the 
supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority 
relative to the performance of the senior executive.

Rachel Dickon,
Secretary.

The Members of the Performance Review Board Are

1. Louis E. Sola, Commissioner
2. Mary T. Hoang, Chief of Staff
3. Kristen A. Monaco, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis
4. Lucille Marvin, Managing Director
5. Patrick M. Moore, Director, Enterprise Services
6. Steven J. Andersen, General Counsel

[FR Doc. 2021-15498 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                                       
                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8) pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock Option Plan for RAC 
Financial Group, Inc., the 1995 Nonemployee Director Stock Option Plan for 
RAC Financial Group, Inc., the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan for RAC 
Financial Group, Inc., the Stock Option Agreement for Dan Marino, the Stock 
Option Agreement for Charles T. Owens, and the Stock Option Agreement for 
Ralph Stringer, of our report dated October 25, 1996, with respect to the 
consolidated financial statements and schedule of RAC Financial Group, Inc. 
and its subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year 
ended September 30, 1996.


                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Dallas, Texas
December 19, 1996
Case: 1:00-cv-07187 Document #: 23 Filed: 01/18/02 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:53
Case: 1:00-cv-07187 Document #: 23 Filed: 01/18/02 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:54
Case: 1:00-cv-07187 Document #: 23 Filed: 01/18/02 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:55
Case: 1:00-cv-07187 Document #: 23 Filed: 01/18/02 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:56
#### Gary ERVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-17374.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*105Submitted Dee. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 13, 2009.

Gary Ervin, Fair Oaks, CA, pro se.

Zackery P. Morazzini, Esq., Attorney General’s Office for the State of California, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: WALLACE, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gary Ervin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record. *Adams v. Johnson,*355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the ADA claims against the state corn’t judges because, as individuals, they were not liable under the ADA, *see Lovell v. Chandler,*303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir.2002), and, to the extent Ervin raised retaliation claims against them, they enjoyed judicial immunity, *see Duvall v. County of Kitsap,*260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir.2001). The district court also properly dismissed the claims against Sacramento Superior Court and the Judicial Council because Ervin did not state a Title II ADA claim against these defendants. *See Weinreich v. L.A. County Metro. Transp. Auth.,*114 F.3d 976, 978-79 (9th Cir.1997).

Because we conclude that these defendants were properly dismissed, we need not consider and do not reach Ervin’s contentions that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his request to take judicial notice of a document already in the record, and that the clerk’s order contained prejudicial legal errors.

We are not persuaded by Ervin’s contention that there has been an intervening change in law, because two of the three cases he cites were decided before the district court’s operative orders in this case, and the remaining case is unavailing.

*106We do not consider the district court’s order denying Ervin’s motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 60(b), or the dismissals of the State Bar and Court Commissioner, because Ervin did not raise or argue these issues in his opening brief. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
The following schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial  statements  contained in the  Registrant's  quarterly  report on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,825
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2,863
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 230
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           852
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               0
<LOANS>                                       72,358
<ALLOWANCE>                                      340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                83,624
<DEPOSITS>                                    75,711
<SHORT-TERM>                                     413
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              881
<LONG-TERM>                                    4,502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           4
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                83,624
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1,795
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 12
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  41
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1,848
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               763
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               871
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            977
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  130
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  6.07
<LOANS-NON>                                        0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     935
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               1,351
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                1,201
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 318
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      9
<RECOVERIES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                340
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             340
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          340
        


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0854. RICHARD A. COSDEN v. THE STATE.

Richard A. Cosden filed both this direct appeal and an application for

discretionary appeal from the trial court’s order denying his “Motion to Correct Void

Sentence.” We denied his application for discretionary appeal. See Case No.

A16D0283 (denied March 22, 2016). Because that denial was an adjudication on the

merits, the doctrine of res judicata bars this direct appeal. See Northwest Social &

Civic Club, Inc. v. Franklin, 276 Ga. 859, 860 (583 SE2d 858) (2003); Hook v.

Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 260-261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007). This appeal is

therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

January 18, 2017

01/18/2017
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Jasmine Gregory, certify that:



(1)I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Premier Holding Corp. for the period ended March 31, 2010;





(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





(4) The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:





(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and





(5) The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date:  September 9, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------ | ---------------------------------------
# Official Journal C 198/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 198 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6213 June 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 198

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6213 June 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2019/C 198/01 | List of the bilateral investment agreements referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2019/C 198/01

List of the bilateral investment agreements referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32.1


                CERTIFICATION 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 Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, George J. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      (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.


Date:  May 1, 2007                         /s/ George J. Carter
                                           -------------------------
                                           George J. Carter
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer