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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,390,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                 143,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,315,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        743,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     523,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,315,200
<SALES>                                        137,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,684
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,097
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,097
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    111
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,986
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.08


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Harry J. White, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



Dated:  November 19, 2002                       /s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.
                                          -------------------------------
                                          Harry J. White, Jr.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1377

To amend the Act incorporating the American Legion to make a technical

correction.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 5, 1997

Mr. HATCH (for himself Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. DASCHLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and

passed

A BILL

To amend the Act incorporating the American Legion to

make a technical correction.

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

3 That section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to Incorporate

4 the American Legion’’, approved September 16, 1919 (41

5 Stat. 285; 36 U.S.C. 45) is amended by striking ‘‘Decem6 ber 22, 1961’’ and inserting ‘‘February 28, 1961’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Constantine Jackson, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 713]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Smith, J.P, Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
#### Isaias GONZALEZ-MAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70131.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 21, 2011.

Isaías Gonzalez-Maya, Victorville, CA, pro se.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*212Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Isaías Gonzalez-Maya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Salta v. INS,*314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the ground that Gonzalez-Maya failed to demonstrate that personal service of the Order to Show Cause provided him insufficient notice of his hearing. *See Khan v. Ashcroft,*374 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: February 8, 2016

S15Y1766, S15Y1767. IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN B. TAYLOR.

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court on Notices of Discipline

seeking the disbarment of Stephen B. Taylor (State Bar No. 701200). The State

Bar attempted to serve Taylor personally at the address listed with the State Bar,

but the sheriff filed a return of service non est inventus. The State Bar then

properly served Taylor by publication, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii),

but Taylor failed to file a Notice of Rejection. Therefore, he is in default, has

waived his rights to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and

further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1

(b).

The facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Taylor’s default, show that,

with regard to S15Y1766, Taylor agreed to represent a client in a criminal

sentencing matter and was paid $750 by the client’s family to do so. After a

single initial visit with the client, Taylor failed to do any work on the client’s
behalf, abandoned the matter, and failed to communicate with the client or the

client’s family. Similarly, in S15Y1767, Taylor agreed to represent a client in

a criminal matter and was paid $2,650 by the client’s family to do so. Taylor

failed to do any work on the matter, abandoned the matter, failed to

communicate with the client or the client’s family, and failed to return the fee

that he was paid. As to each matter, Taylor was served by publication with a

Notice of Investigation, but he failed to file a timely sworn, written response, as

required by Bar Rule 4-204.3

Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to

believe that, in S15Y1766, Taylor violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3, all of the

Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). As to

S15Y1767, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to believe that Taylor

violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3, along with Rule 1.16. The maximum sanction

for a violation of Rule 1.3 is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a

violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16, and 9.3 is a public reprimand. In aggravation of

discipline as to each of the matters, the Investigative Panel found that Taylor had

acted willfully in collecting a fee from these clients and abandoning the legal

matters entrusted to him, that he acted with a selfish motive in so doing, and that

2
these two matters, taken together, show a pattern of client neglect. The Bar

further notes that this Court previously had imposed upon Taylor an interim

suspension, see In the Matter of Taylor, S13Y1720 (August 20, 2013), and that

he received an Investigative Panel reprimand in 2012.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is the

appropriate sanction in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the

name of Stephen B. Taylor be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to

practice law in the State of Georgia. Taylor is reminded of his duties pursuant

to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur. 

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302

I, Robert De Vaere, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Epimmune Inc.;

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 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;

      b) 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

      c) 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 and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
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 controls 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: June 22, 2005

                                   /s/ ROBERT DE VAERE
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Robert De Vaere
                                  Vice President, Finance and Administration and
                                  Chief Financial Officer
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
 Wheat Health, Genetics, and Quality Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington WHGQ People & Locations







Dorothy  Hall
                        Wheat Health, Genetics, and Quality Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (509) 335-1116
                        
                        
                        Fax: (509) 335-7674(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
04C6488 US vs. Dan Wright, Sr. (02 CR 451) Page 1 of 1

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Charles P. Kocoras Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 04 C 6488 DATE 3/4/2005

CASE

TITLE

US vs. Dan Wright, Sr. (02 CR 451)

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: Wright’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is

denied with prejudice. Wright’s motion for bail is denied as moot.

O [ For further detail see attached order.] Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

*Mail AO 450 form.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

SCT
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1444 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1444

       To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 7, 1997

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new item:

      

``    9902.32.30     2-                                                                                         
                      Naphthalenesulfo                                                                          
                      nic acid, 7-                                                                              
                      (acetylamino)-4-                                                                          
                      hydroxy-,                                                                                 
                      monosodium salt                                                                           
                      (CAS No. 42360-                                                                           
                      29-2) (provided                                                                           
                      for in                                                                                    
                      subheading                                                                                
                      2924.29.70.00)..  Free              No change        No change        On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/2000            
                                                                                                              ''

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### HANNIGAN v. LEHIGH & H. R. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Injury to Brakeman—Coupling Cars—Contributory Negligence.

Whether a printed rule of a railway company, requiring use of a coupling stick, was a live rule, or had ceased to be in force, and, consequently, whether a brakeman was negligent in making a coupling without such stick, is a question for the jury; there being evidence that the rule had never been enforced, and that brakemen applying for them at the company storehouse had been unable to procure them.

•Appeal from circuit court, Orange county.

Action by Eichard Hannigan against the Lehigh & Hudson Eiver Railway Company for personal injuries. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before DYKMAN and PEATT, JJ.

John J. Beattie, for appellant.

John W. Lyon, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

The objection chiefly urged against the judgment is that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, in failing to use a coupling stick. The rule of the company, printed on the back of the time-table, required their use, and stated they could be procured at Warwick. But it was proved that the rule had never been enforced, and that brakemen who had applied for them at the storehouse had been unable to procure them. On the testimony the court *294properly left it to the jury to say whether the rule was a live rule, or whether it had ceased to be in force. Hayes v. Manufacturing Co., 41 Hun, 407. The verdict was not excessive. Wooster v. Railway Co. (Sup.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 764. No other question requires discussion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6613

DEVON SUTHERLAND; DEMETRICE MURRAY; IRA WAYNE

MADISON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor - Plaintiff,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON; BARBARA

J. WHEELER; G. K. WASHINGTON; L. T. EDMONDS;

B. BOOKER; N. LINAMEN; CHARLES DAVIS; KEITH

DAVIS; DAVID A. GARRAGHTY; R. A. YOUNG; S. T.

AVENT; JOHN TAYLOR; BRAXTON; R. S. JACKSON;

J. KEELING; JARVIS; K. A. POLINSKY; CLARENCE

A. HOLLAR; JOHN DOES; D. J. ARMSTRONG; DUNCAN

MILLS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (7:02-cv-00477-JCT)

Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Devon Sutherland; Demetrice Murray; Ira Wayne Madison, Appellants

Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Devon Sutherland, Demetrice Murray, and Ira Wayne Madison

appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

the defendant prison officials in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

action challenging the validity and enforcement of the prison’s

grooming policy. We deny Sutherland’s motion to place this case in

abeyance pending a decision by this court in an appeal raising

similar claims and deny his motion for default. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Sutherland v.

Angelone, No. 7:02-cv-00477-JCT (W.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2006). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED