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

<ARTICLE>                               5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                  4,601,496
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           992,941
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  53,932,942
<DEPRECIATION>                          11,006,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          48,895,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                              43,776,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>		48,895,202
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        13,835,896
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           6,217,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        7,564,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            232,226
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages 2 and 3 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 1998, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         460,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,563,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                   428,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,392,463
<PP&E>                                         449,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                (124,018)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,930,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,851,191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,137,803
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,941,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,930,141
<SALES>                                      4,118,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,118,769
<CGS>                                        2,462,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,462,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,681,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (124,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (50,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (74,044)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (74,044)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

RICHARD LANE ANSON, 

Case No. 6:14-cv-01357-BR 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MR. PREMO, Superintendent, 

Oregon State Penitentiary, 

Respondent. 

BROWN, Judge. 

ORDER 

The Court GRANTS Petitioner's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal 

(#21). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 1rw day of April, 2015. 

United States District Judge 

1 - ORDER -

Case 6:14-cv-01357-BR Document 22 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ORLANDO GONZALES; BONNIE 

JEAN GONZALES, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DAVID SCHUTT, 

Defendant. 

PANNER, District Ju~ge: 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

1:14-cv-01347-CL 

ORDER 

On Decemb~r 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a 

Findings and Recommendation (#16), and the matter is now before 

this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Defendant filed objections (#21), Plaintiffs have responded to 

Defendant's objections (#22) and I have reviewed the file of this 

case de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Doualas Corp. v. 

1 - ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01347-CL Document 23 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 2
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). 

I have given this matter de novo review. I find no error. 

There are insufficient facts for the Court to make a determination 

regarding prosecutorial immunity and sovereign immunity at this 

stage of the case. Accordingly, I ADOPr the Findings and 

Recommendation. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#7) is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint (#11) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ,%... '1 day of January, 2 014. 

~~~~~ OWEN M. PANNER 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

2 - ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01347-CL Document 23 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2
v133637_ex10-1 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


    
      Exhibit
        10.1
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for Western Michigan, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH LOWELL MCELYEA, JR.,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF ARIZONA and CHARLES L.

RYAN,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 09-15429

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00885-SMM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Stephen M. McNamee, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,*** Senior District

Judge. 

FILED

NOV 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

The Arizona state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established

Supreme Court law when it rejected Joseph Lowell McElyea’s claim that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Because there is no support in the record that

McElyea’s counsel knew or had reason to know of the arresting officers’ alleged

misconduct, the state court could reasonably determine that McElyea’s counsel did

not perform deficiently by failing to challenge the admissibility of McElyea’s

confession. See Bobby v. Van Hook, 130 S. Ct. 13, 19 (2009) (per curiam). 

Further, even if counsel’s performance had been deficient, McElyea suffered no

prejudice, given that he independently testified to the contents of his post-arrest

statements at trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. 

The district court did not err by declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing

because, even assuming McElyea made reasonable efforts to investigate and

pursue his claims in state court, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), he has not alleged specific

facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief. See West v. Ryan, 608 F.3d 477,

485 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1473 (2011). 

Finally, the district court did not err in declining to hear McElyea’s untimely

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation because McElyea

neither presented sufficient evidence to overcome Rule 5(b)’s presumption of
3

service, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), nor claimed that the district court’s failure to

consider his general, untimely objection constituted a denial of a constitutional

right, Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). 

AFFIRMED.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1553

To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

with respect to the dumping of dredged material in Long Island Sound,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. D’AMATO (for himself and Mr. MOYNIHAN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act of 1972 with respect to the dumping of dredged

material in Long Island Sound, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Long Island Sound

5 Preservation and Protection Act of 1997’’.
2

•S 1553 IS

1 SEC. 2. DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIALS IN LONG IS2 LAND SOUND.

3 Section 106 of the Marine Protection, Research, and

4 Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1416) is amended by

5 striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:

6 ‘‘(f) DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL IN LONG IS7 LAND SOUND.—

8 ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—No dredged material from

9 any Federal or non-Federal project in a quantity ex10 ceeding 25,000 cubic yards that contains any of the

11 constituents prohibited as other than trace contami12 nants (as defined by the Federal ocean dumping cri13 teria set forth in section 227.6 of title 40, Code of

14 Federal Regulations) may be dumped in Long Island

15 Sound (including Fishers Island Sound) or Block Is16 land Sound, except in a case in which it is dem17 onstrated to the Administrator, and the Adminis18 trator certifies by publication in the Federal Reg19 ister, that the dumping of the dredged material con20 taining the constituents will not cause significant

21 undesirable effects, including the threat associated

22 with bioaccumulation of the constituents in marine

23 organisms.

24 ‘‘(2) COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIRE25 MENTS.—In addition to other provisions of law and

26 notwithstanding the specific exclusion relating to
3

•S 1553 IS

1 dredged material of the first sentence in section

2 102(a), any dumping of dredged material in Long

3 Island Sound (including Fishers Island Sound) or

4 Block Island Sound from a Federal project pursuant

5 to Federal authorization, or from a dredging project

6 by a non-Federal applicant, in a quantity exceeding

7 25,000 cubic yards, shall comply with the require8 ments of this Act, including the criteria established

9 under the second sentence of section 102(a) relating

10 to the effects of dumping.

11 ‘‘(3) RELATION TO OTHER LAW.—Subsection

12 (d) shall not apply to this subsection.’’.

Æ
# Euroopa Liidu C 199/2008

| | ISSN 1725-5171 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 199 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 51. köide5. august 2008 |

ISSN 1725-5171

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 199

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

51. köide5. august 2008

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutsioonid, soovitused ja arvamused |
| | ARVAMUSED |
| | Kontrollikoda |
| 2008/C 199/01 | Euroopa Kontrollikoja arvamus nr 3/2008 nõukogu määruse ettepaneku kohta, millega muudetakse määrust (Euratom, ESTÜ, EÜ) nr 549/69, millega määratakse kindlaks Euroopa ühenduste ametnike ja muude teenistujate kategooriad, kelle suhtes kohaldatakse Euroopa ühenduste privileegide ja immuniteetide protokolli artiklit 12, artikli 13 teist lõiku ja artiklit 14 | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

I   Resolutsioonid, soovitused ja arvamused

ARVAMUSED

Kontrollikoda

2008/C 199/01

Euroopa Kontrollikoja arvamus nr 3/2008 nõukogu määruse ettepaneku kohta, millega muudetakse määrust (Euratom, ESTÜ, EÜ) nr 549/69, millega määratakse kindlaks Euroopa ühenduste ametnike ja muude teenistujate kategooriad, kelle suhtes kohaldatakse Euroopa ühenduste privileegide ja immuniteetide protokolli artiklit 12, artikli 13 teist lõiku ja artiklit 14

1

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

ET

---

I Resolutsioonid, soovitused ja arvamused

ARVAMUSED

Kontrollikoda

| 5.8.2008 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 199/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2008

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 199/1

---

EUROOPA KONTROLLIKOJA ARVAMUS nr 3/2008

nõukogu määruse ettepaneku kohta, millega muudetakse määrust (Euratom, ESTÜ, EÜ) nr 549/69, millega määratakse kindlaks Euroopa ühenduste ametnike ja muude teenistujate kategooriad, kelle suhtes kohaldatakse Euroopa ühenduste privileegide ja immuniteetide protokolli artiklit 12, artikli 13 teist lõiku ja artiklit 14

(2008/C 199/01)

EUROOPA KONTROLLIKODA,

võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut, eelkõige selle artikli 248 lõiget 4 ja artiklit 291,

võttes arvesse Euroopa ühenduste privileegide ja immuniteetide protokolli, eelkõige selle artiklit 16,

võttes arvesse komisjoni 23. mai 2008. aasta ettepanekut (1),

võttes arvesse kontrollikoja poolt 6. juunil 2008. aastal saadud nõukogu taotlust arvamuse avaldamiseks antud ettepaneku kohta,

ning arvestades, et komisjoni ettepaneku eesmärk on, et kohtulikku puutumatust ei tuleks kohaldada Europoli ametnike suhtes nende osalemisel ühistes uurimisrühmades, mille liikmesriigid on loonud seoses Europoli pädevusse kuuluva eeluurimisega,

ON VASTU VÕTNUD JÄRGMISE ARVAMUSE:

Kavandatud muudatus, millega sätestatakse, et kohtulikku puutumatust ei kohaldata ühiste uurimisrühmade käsutusse määratud Europoli ametnike suhtes, ei anna põhjust kontrollikoja märkusteks.

Kontrollikoda võttis käesoleva arvamuse vastu 17. juuli 2008. aasta istungil Luxembourgis.

Kontrollikoja nimel

president

Vítor Manuel DA SILVA CALDEIRA

---

(1)  KOM(2008) 305 (lõplik), 23.5.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      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 Silverado  Financial,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John E. Hartman., Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
ss.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.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
13th day of September 2005.


/s/ John E. Hartman.
-----------------------------
    John E. Hartman
    Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Emile
Loria, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Epimmune Inc. (the "Company"), and
Robert De Vaere, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Annual
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for
the period covered by the Annual Report.

Dated: June 22, 2005

 /s/ EMILE LORIA                       /s/ ROBERT DE VAERE
-----------------------------         ------------------------------------------
Emile Loria, M.D.                     Robert De Vaere
President and Chief Executive         Vice President, Finance and Administration
Officer                               and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K/A to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of Epimmune Inc. under the Securities
Act of 1933,as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K/A), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 4276

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHEASER ANTONIO GRANT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 8:06

- cr - 00515

- HMH

- 1 )

Submitted : September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, A. Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorne y, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cheaser Antonio Grant appeals from the judgment revoking his supe rvised release and imposing a 48

- month sentence. Grant challenges his sentence , contending that it is plainly unre asonable, because the district court did not sufficiently explain its reasoning

. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revoc ation of supervised release.” United States v. Webb , 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’” Id . (quoting United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 4 38 (4th Cir. 2006)). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is procedurally re asonable if the district court adequately explains the sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); Thompson , 595 F.3d at 546

- 4 7. Grant claims that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain adequately its reasons for imposing a 48

- month sentence, which was below the statutory maximum but exceeded the applicable Sentencing Guidelines’

a dvisory policy statement range. Having reviewed the record, we find that the district court’s explanation of this sentence, considering its commentary during the proceeding , was sufficient under the circumstances. See Thompson , 595 F.3d at 547 (discussing standard). We therefore conclude that Grant’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
10.2

    


    Mr
William Bloking

    President
& Chairman of the Board of Directors

    KAL
Energy, Inc.

    


    10
December 2008

    


    RE:
Executive Chairman Fees

    


    Dear Mr.
Bloking:

    


    On behalf
of the Board of Directors of KAL Energy, Inc. (“the Company”), and in light of
your duties as Executive Chairman and President of the Company, I hereby tender
for your consideration our amended Remuneration Package.

    


    Base
Salary

    During
your term as Executive Chairman, your cash fees will be decreased from a rate of
$300,000 per annum to $0 per annum.  This will be accounted for since
January 1, 2009.

    


    In
exchange for the cash savings, the Company offers to pay you the equivalent rate
in shares of KAL Energy Stock at the prevailing market rate for each month of
service.

    


    I hope
you will find this to be a competitive offer, and look forward to your written
acceptance.

    


    


    Yours
sincerely,

    


    


    


    


    Andrew
Caminschi

    Executive
Director

    KAL
Energy, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  182,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,137
<PP&E>                                       7,451,534
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,221,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,413,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,413,815
<SALES>                                        285,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               285,374
<CGS>                                          111,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  210,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             74,579
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,579
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>