alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
 Nutrition, Growth and Physiology: Clay Center, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USMARC Home
                    USMARC Research Units
                        Genetics and Animal Breeding
                                    Meat Safety & Quality
                                    Livestock Bio Systems
                                    Animal Health GenomicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Clay Center, Nebraska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Nutrition, Growth and Physiology People & Locations







Ashley  Lutz
                        Nutrition, Growth and Physiology

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (402) 762-4214
                        
                        
                        Fax: (402) 762-4209(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
#### Barnwell *v.*Valdosta Street Railway Company.

June 17, 1915.

Action for damages. Before Judge Thomas. Lowndes superior court. February 14, 1914.

*Dan B. Bruce,*for plaintiff. *B. K. Wilcox,*for defendant.

Beck, J.

The court’s instructions to the jury upon the controlling issues in this case are substantially correct, and the inaccuracies in other portions of the charge are not of a sufficiently grave character to work a reversal of the judgment denying a new trial, under the evidence in the case. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Jusiiees concur.*
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
 Sustainable Agricultural Water Systems Research: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Information
                        Final ReportsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Davis, California Sustainable Agricultural Water Systems Research People







Gordon Kenrick Osterman    Research Geophysicist


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
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
 Agroecosystem Management Research: Lincoln, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Lincoln, Nebraska Agroecosystem Management Research People & Locations







Benjamin T Fann
                        Agroecosystem Management Research

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician
                        Phone: (402) 472-9210
                        
                        
                        Fax: (402) 472-4020(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
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Fox Petroleum, Inc. - Exhibit 10.8






SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT 

          This
Side Letter Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this 31st day of
October 2008 by and among Fox Petroleum, Inc. a Nevada corporation, with
headquarters located at 64 Knightsbridge, London, SW1X7JF (the
“Company”), and Trafalgar Capital Specialized Investment Fund,
Luxembourg (“Trafalgar”).

          WHEREAS,
the Company and Trafalgar have executed a Securities Purchase Agreement and an
amendment thereto through which the Buyer has purchased secured debentures (the
“Secured Debentures”), from the Company in an aggregate principal amount
of three million five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000).

          NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and in consideration of the mutual
promises set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

          If the
Company successfully completes an equity financing for a gross amount of a
minimum of five million dollars ($5,000,000), the Company will fully redeem all
Secured Debentures within one business day of the Company’s receipt of the funds
from such financing

          This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with and
governed by the laws of the State of Florida (without giving effect to any
conflicts or choice of law provisions thereof that would cause the application
of the domestic substantive laws of any other jurisdiction). Each of the parties
consents to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court sitting in the Southern
District of the State of Florida or the state courts of the State of Florida
sitting in Broward County, Florida in connection with any dispute arising under
this Agreement and hereby waives, to the maximum extent permitted by law, any
objection, including any objection based on forum non conveniens to the
bringing of any such proceeding in such jurisdictions.

          This
Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so
executed shall be deemed to be an original and, all of which taken together
shall constitute one and the same Amendment.

          IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Securities Purchase
Agreement as of the Date first set forth above.

 


	Fox Petroleum, Inc. 
	Trafalgar Capital Specialized
      
Investment Fund, Luxembourg 
	


By: /s/ Richard Joseph Moore 
Name:
      Mr. Richard Joseph Moore 
Title: CEO and Director 	By: Trafalgar Capital Sarl 
Its: General
      Partner 

By: /s/ Andrew Garai 
Name: Mr. Andrew Garai
      
Title: Chairman of the Board
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1430 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1430

 To suspend from January 1, 1998, until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
                  SE2SI Spray Granulated (HOE S 4291).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 from January 1, 1998, until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
                  SE2SI Spray Granulated (HOE S 4291).

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON SE2SI SPRAY GRANULATED (HOE S 4291).

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

         ``    9902.39.80     SE2SI Spray                                                                       
                               Granulated (HOE                                                                  
                               S 4291) provided                                                                 
                               for in                                                                           
                               subheading                                                                       
                               3907.99.........  Free        No change        No change       On or before      
                                                                                               12/31/2002       
                                                                                                                

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
January 1, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ernest Milchman et al., Respondents, v Steven Lipkin, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 880]

*522Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered August 29, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion to pay $200,000 under the parties’ stipulation of settlement, and allowed plaintiffs to reschedule a sheriffs sale of defendant’s property unless defendant paid $352,250 to plaintiffs by the time the new sale date was set, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement made in open court are strictly enforced, in the absence of cause sufficient to invalidate a contract *(see Hallock v State of New York,*64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Here, defendant does not present any grounds for not enforcing the so-ordered stipulation of settlement, nor does he dispute that he failed to comply with several of its provisions. Defendant, among other things, failed to timely tender the payment of $200,000 required by the parties’ stipulation of settlement, and failed to timely apply for an extension of the period in which to do so in accordance with the stipulation. Thus, the court properly denied defendant’s request to permit him to settle all claims by tendering such payment.

The subject stipulation provided that, in the event of defendant’s default, plaintiffs could execute on defendant’s property and collect on a reinstated 2002 judgment, which awarded plaintiffs $299,275.21 plus interest. In accordance with those provisions, the court properly authorized plaintiffs to reschedule the property sale unless defendant tendered payment in the amount of $352,250. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         438,445
<SECURITIES>                                   142,533
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,662,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,509,795
<PP&E>                                         563,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                 159,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,617,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,493,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,617,916
<SALES>                                     47,993,287
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,993,287
<CGS>                                       45,554,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,923,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,157
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             155,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                891,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                   306,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            584,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   584,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-14071

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00022-MW-CAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus 

DARYL GOFPHIN, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(April 6, 2018)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-14071 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Daryl Gofphin pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court determined his offense 

level under the Sentencing Guidelines to be 21, and his criminal history category to 

be VI. It sentenced Mr. Gofphin to 60 months in prison, below the corresponding 

Guidelines range of 77 to 96 months. 

Mr. Gofphin now appeals his sentence. His sole argument is that his offense 

level should have been lower because one of his two predicate crimes—

“possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver,” see Fla. Stat. § 893.13—

lacks a mens rea element, and consequently is not a “controlled substance offense” 

under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a) & 4B1.2(b). 

As Mr. Gofphin recognizes, see Br. at 11, we have already rejected this 

argument in a published opinion. See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th 

Cir. 2014). He argues, however, that “[t]he Court’s reasoning in Smith was 

unsatisfactory.” Br. at 14. 

Whether or not Smith’s reasoning is “satisfactory,” this panel is bound by it. 

See United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 942 (11th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we 

affirm Mr. Gofphin’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-14071 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Brown, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 480]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered December 10, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial when certain hospital records were admitted into evidence in order to establish physical injury, an element of burglary in the first degree *(see*Penal Law § 140.30 [2]), is without merit, as the records were properly admitted under New York’s business records exception to the hearsay rule *(see*CPLR 2306 [a]; 4518 [a], [c]; *People v Damato,*79 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2010]; *People v Verrilli,*69 AD3d 963, 964 [2010]).

The defendant’s contention that the use of a letter of certification to authenticate the hospital records deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]) is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit, since the challenged certificate was not testimonial in nature *(see generally People v Rawlins,*10 NY3d 136 [2008], *cert denied sub nom. Meekins v New York,*557 US —, 129 S Ct 2856 [2009]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Rivera, J.P., Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
(14 Misc. Rep. 612.)

#### SANG SHING v. SIRE.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County,

General Term.

December 27, 1895.)

Evidence—Burden of Proof.

Where a tenant sues to recover money deposited with his landlord as security for his performance of the conditions of the lease, the burden of proof is on him to show compliance with the terms of the lease.

Appeal from Eighth district court.

Action by Sang Shing against Benjamin Sire. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before BOOKSTAYER and BISOHOFF, JJ.

Warren S. Burt, for appellant.

George W. Glaze, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff, as tenant, entered into a contract of lease providing for rent payable in installments of $40 at the commencement of each month, and which also required^ the observance of certain covenants by the tenant during the full term of seven months. At the time when the contract was made the plaintiff paid to the defendant the sum of $40, stated, according to the agreement, to be “deposited * * * as security for the rent and fulfillment of conditions of this lease. If complied with, the said $40 are to be returned to the party of the second part [this plaintiff] at the end of said lease, and if not complied with this $40 is forfeited as liquidated damages.” The plaintiff refused to pay his rent for the last month of the term, and was forthwith dispossessed; his stand, as taken and sustained in this action, being that the security deposited with the defendant should have sufficed for payment of the rent for such month, and that, failing his enjoyment of such part of the term the sum in suit, the amount of such deposit should have accrued to him. Unfortunately for his position, this was not Ms contract, and there was a complete failure of proof that the several conditions of the agreement had been fulfilled. The rent was to be paid upon the first day of each month, the deposit to accrue as a debt to the tenant at the end of the term should he have then complied'with this, together with the other conditions. This was his contract, and while his position may well be deplored in the result, the conclusion of the court below must be viewed as unauthorized, since the burden of showing compliance with its terms was upon him, and this he had failed to show. Consequently, he was not entitled to the return of the deposit, and the judgment is well as*467sailed. The plaintiff’s second cause of action was dismissed upon the trial, and the questions raised thereby are not now before us.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the following Registration Statements: 

1. Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-155199) pertaining to the 2006 EquityIncentive Plan; 

2. Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-151968) pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan; and 

3. Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-150277) pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan 

and related Prospectuses of ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. of our report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 27, 2009covering the financial statements of ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 and for the period from inception of operations (February 25, 2004) toDecember 31, 2008. 

/s/ STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC. 

LosAngeles, California 

March 27, 2009