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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,033
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,871
<PP&E>                                       8,810,568
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,808,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,207,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,207,906
<SALES>                                        839,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               842,915
<CGS>                                          335,585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  641,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                201,911
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            201,911
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   201,911
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Wolff, Appellant, v. Matthews.

1. Practice : action on account : interest. In an action upon an account for moneys alleged to have been, furnished defendant, no interest is recoverable, in the absence of an agreement on the subject, prior to a demand for the amount on which interest is claimed, and this is so whether the items be regarded as comprising one current account or as separate demands.

2. -:---:--. Personal service of process is a demand for the purpose of starting the running of interest.

3. Appellate Jurisdiction.: amount involved : constitution. By the expression‘‘amount in dispute” the constitution means the amount of the real dispute at the time of the judgment appealed from.

*Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court.*— Hon. W. W. Edwards, Judge.

Transferred to st. loots court of appeals.

Plaintiff is assignee of an account against defendant, made by a firm ( L. A. & Co.) for moneys alleged to have been expended for defendant with interest on each of such items from its date. Defendant denied the claim generally. The trial resulted in judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff’s aggregate demand ( including the interest items) as stated in the petition exceeds twenty-five hundred dollars. But from the record, made in the trial court, it is evident that the amount of his real demand was less than that sum at the time the judgment appealed from was rendered.

*247*Lackland & Wilson*for appellant.

*T. F. McDearmon*for respondent.

Barclay, J.

— In an action of this nature no interest is recoverable ( in the absence of an agreement on the subject) prior to a demand for the amount on which interest is claimed. Such a demand in this case was necessary to sustain a claim for interest whether the plaintiff’s items be regarded as composing one current account or as separate demands. The personal service of process is a demand for the purpose of starting the running of interest but that would not raise the plaintiff’s total claim, at the time of the judgment, to twenty-five hundred dollars. No evidence was offered by plaintiff to support a recovery for sufficient interest to raise his demand to that sum.

We recently decided that, where the record disclosed plaintiff’s Claim as a liquidated one below the limit of our jurisdiction, the prayer of the petition for a greater amount would not be taken as indicating the “ amount in dispute.” ■ By that expression the constitution means the amount of the real dispute at the time of the judgment appealed from. *Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh,*97 Mo. 287.

It follows that this case is within the jurisdiction of the St. Louis court of appeals. It is therefore transferred to that court for further proceedings,

all the judges concurring except Sherwood, J., absent.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 07, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 07, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0196. XIAONAN WANG v. MARK BUTLER, COMMISSIONER OF GA DOL.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 18A04230
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41002 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELOY LAURO ALANIZ-ELIZONDO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-119-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eloy Lauro Alaniz-Elizondo appeals his guilty-plea sentencing for reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He argues that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to simple reentry, § 1326(a), but was sentenced as if he had pleaded guilty to reentry following a felony conviction pursuant to § 1326(b)(2). His argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943,No. -2- 946-47 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
ASIANADA,
      INC.

    AMENDMENT
      TO 2007 EMPLOYEE, DIRECTOR AND CONSULTANT STOCK PLAN

    


    This
      Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Asianada, Inc. (the “Company”) 2007 Employee,
      Director and Consultant Stock Plan (the “Plan”), is hereby effective as of
      December 2, 2008. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise
      defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the
      Plan.

    


    WHEREAS,
      the
      Company enacted the Plan in accordance with the purposes set forth therein;
      and

    


    WHEREAS,
      Section
      31 of the Plan reserves to the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”) the
      power in its discretion to amend the Plan at any time and from time to time
      subject to applicable law and the rights of the Participants on the date of
      such
      action; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      the
      Board
      deems it appropriate to amend the Plan to increase the aggregate number of
      Shares which may be issued from time to time pursuant to the Plan from one
      million (1,000,000) shares to four million (4,000,000) shares.

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      the Plan
      is hereby amended as set forth below:

    


    1. Section
      3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting “one million (1,000,000)” from
      the second line thereof and inserting “four million (4,000,000)” in its
      place.

    


    2.
       The
      Plan
      shall remain in full force and effect except as specifically amended
      herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      12,130,000
<SECURITIES>                                 5,935,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,388,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   290,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,908,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,429,000
<PP&E>                                      10,839,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,846,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,775,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,543,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       151,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,208,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,775,000
<SALES>                                     40,262,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,262,000
<CGS>                                       18,797,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,797,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            47,938,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (25,094,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (25,094,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (25,094,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.76)



</TABLE>
#### Juan Carlos HERNANDEZ-MARINERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73684.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*950Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 22, 2011.

Gerald Kenneth Roberts, Law Offices of Gerald K. Roberts, Pittsburg, CA, for Petitioner.

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

Before: 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 **

Juan Carlos Hernandez-Marinero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Hernandez-Marinero failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because the isolated assault by unknown assailants was not on account of a protected ground. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, Hernandez-Marinero’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Accent Collections, Inc., Appellant, v Cappelli Enterprises, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 802]

In an action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered February 8, 2011, as denied that branch of its motion which was to vacate a trial readiness order dated November 1, 2010.

Ordered that the order entered February 8, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“ ‘The Supreme Court has broad discretion in the supervision of discovery, and its determinations should not be disturbed on appeal unless improvidently made’ ” *(Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp.,*74 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2010], quoting *Casabona v Hunting*
      *1028
      *ton Union Free School Dist.,*29 AD3d 723, 723 [2006]). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to vacate the trial readiness order based upon its determination that, pursuant to a compliance conference order, the additional discovery sought by the plaintiff was waived.(see *Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v Brittenham,*284 AD2d 518 [2001]; *cf. Summers v Kardex Sys.,*210 AD2d 216 [1994]; *see generally Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp.,*74 AD3d at 1140; *Casabona v Huntington Union Free School Dist.,*29 AD3d at 723). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1440 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1440

       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:

      

``    9902.32.16     1,3-                                                                                       
                      Naphthalenedisul                                                                          
                      fonic acid, 6-                                                                            
                      amino-, disodium                                                                          
                      salt (CAS No.                                                                             
                      50976-35-7)                                                                               
                      (provided for in                                                                          
                      subheading                                                                                
                      2921.45.90.90)..  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>
```
1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

DEBORAH EVI, 

 No. 3:14-cv-01467-YY 

 Plaintiff, 

 OPINION AND ORDER 

v. 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., 

 Defendant. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On July 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge You issued her Findings and Recommendation [38], 

recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [23] and Plaintiff’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment [31] should be DENIED. Defendant filed its Objections to the 

Findings and Recommendation [40] on August 1, 2016. Plaintiff did not object to the Findings 

and Recommendation. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

Case 3:14-cv-01467-MO Document 41 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge You’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 

[38] as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ______ day of September, 2016. 

____________________________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge 

21

/s/ Michael W. Mosman

Case 3:14-cv-01467-MO Document 41 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Revised 03/11/2008

Case Number: Assigned/Issued By:

Judge Name: Designated Magistrate Judge:

FEE INFORMATION

Amount Due: $350.00 $39.00 $5.00

IFP No Fee Other _____________

 $455.00

Number of Service Copies ___________ Date: ______________________

(For use by Fiscal Department Only)

Amount Paid: _______________ Receipt #: __________________

Date Payment Rec’d: _____________ Fiscal Clerk: ________________

ISSUANCES

Summons Alias Summons

Third Party Summons Lis Pendens

Non Wage Garnishment Summons Abstract of Judgment

___________________________

 Wage-Deduction Garnishment Summons ___________________________

 (Victim, Against and $ Amount)

 Citation to Discover Assets

 Other

Writ _______________________ _______________________

(Type of Writ) _______________________

(Type of issuance)

 ______Original and __________ copies on ________________ as to ____________________________

 (Date)

 ____________________________________________________________________________________

 ____________________________________________________________________________________

04CR778-1 MGH

✔

1 1 12/28/11 ANTHONY TODD

(NO NOTICE - THIRD PARTY)

Case: 1:04-cr-00778 Document #: 680 Filed: 12/28/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2186
No. 76-5198.

#### Crespo-Guerrero *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 3.43
                          AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS

                  EMORY CARE CENTER, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION

                         Adopted as of November 1, 1996

                             ARTICLE I SHAREHOLDERS

         Section 1. Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the shareholders shall
be held in the month of June in each year or at such other time as shall be
fixed by the Board of Directors, for the purpose of electing directors and for
the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting.

         Section 2. Notice of Meeting. Written notice stating the place, day and
hour of the meeting and, in case of a special meeting, the purpose or purposes
for which the meeting is called, shall, unless otherwise prescribed by statute,
be delivered not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days before the
date of the meeting, either personally or by mail, or at the direction of the
president, or the secretary, or the officer or other persons calling the
meeting.

                          ARTICLE II BOARD OF DIRECTORS

         Section 1. Number, Tenure and Qualifications. The number of directors
of the corporation shall be not less than one (1) nor more than four (4) as
established by the Board of Directors from time to time. Each director shall
hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders and until his
successor shall have been elected and qualified. Directors need not be residents
of the State of Texas or shareholders of the corporation.

         Section 2. Regular and Special Meetings. The Board of Directors may
call regular and special meetings.

                              ARTICLE III OFFICERS

         Section 1. Number. The officers of the corporation shall be a
president, vice president, a secretary and a treasurer, all of whom shall be
elected or appointed by the Board of Directors. Such other officers and
assistant officers as may be deemed necessary may be elected or appointed by the
Board of Directors. Any two or more offices may be held by the same person.

         Section 2. Election and Term of Office. The officers of the corporation
shall be elected annually by the Board of Directors. Each officer shall hold
office until his successor shall have been elected and shall have qualified or
until his death or until he shall resign or shall have been removed in the
manner hereinafter provided.

                             ARTICLE IV FISCAL YEAR

         The fiscal year of the corporation shall begin on the 1st day of
January and end on the 31st day of December in each year.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1473

FRANCISCO JAVIER ROYO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JUDICIARY SYSTEM;

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES;

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-96-161-R)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francisco Javier Royo, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Lee Doggett, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Francisco Javier Royo appeals the district court's order

granting the Commonwealth of Virginia's motion to dismiss on behalf

of itself and the Virginia Department of Social Services, and dismissing Royo's complaint with prejudice against all Defendants. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We affirm

the district court's grant of the Commonwealth of Virginia's motion

to dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. However, we

affirm the dismissal of Royo's claims against the Internal Revenue

Service with the modification that the dismissal is without prejudice. We further deny Royo's motion for general relief and his

motion for injunction. 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 AS MODIFIED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

GRANTS PASS SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant,) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

STUDENT, ) 

PANNER, J. 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

No. 1:14-cv-01115-PA 

JUDGMENT 

The appeal of the Grants Pass School District is GRANTED. 

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge in Oregon Department 

of Education Case No. DP 14-104 is REVERSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~ day of April, 2015. 

0U~UL71t~ Owen M. Panner 

United States District Judge 

1 - JUDGMENT 

Case 1:14-cv-01115-PA Document 34 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 1