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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,015,149
<SECURITIES>                                94,183,019
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,706,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    750,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           101,655,253
<PP&E>                                      15,099,812
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,268,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             111,287,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,148,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,095
<OTHER-SE>                                 108,122,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               111,287,044
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,590,087
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,208,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,456,515)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,456,515)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

Andre Juste, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-383 (UNA)

 )

Hiram E. Puig-Lugo, )

 )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis

application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a 

case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, is frivolous, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident. He has sued Associate Judge Puig-Lugo of the 

Superior Court of the District of Columbia for “the sum of [$]25,000,000.” Compl. at 9. The 

complaint sets out four claims for relief: the first alleges violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552a; the second alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause; the third 

alleges obstruction of justice; and the fourth alleges legal malpractice. Compl. at 10-13. All of 

the claims, to the extent intelligible, are based on defendant’s “rulings against” plaintiff. Id. at 14. 

An “in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous . . . if it is clear from 

the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims 

asserted.” Crisafi v. Holland 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Additionally, a complaint 

that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” may be dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke v. 
2

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Judges enjoy absolute immunity from suits, such as this, 

based on acts taken in their judicial capacity, so long as they have jurisdiction over the subject 

matter. Moore v. Burger, 655 F.2d 1265, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (citing cases). Such 

“immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. 

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). In addition, a complaint against judges who have “done nothing 

more than their duty” is “a meritless action.” Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 

(D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with 

prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

 

_________s/_____________

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

Date: April 6, 2020 United States District Judge
Exhibit 23





We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-76820, 333-54092, 333-36462, 333-45511,  333-100637, and 333-89478 of Altair
Nanotechnologies  Inc.  on Form  S-3,  Registration  Statement  Nos.  333-64495,
333-33481  and  333-99099  of  Altair  Nanotechnologies  Inc.  on  Form  S-8 and
Registration  Statement No.  333-102592  on Form S-2 of Altair  Nanotechnologies
Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2003  appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Altair Nanotechologies Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
    Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 14, 2003
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 13, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00655

- CV

M. U., N. T.
, and E. T., Appellant s

v.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAY S COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the termination decree signed by the district court on September 12, 2013

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no

reversible error in the district court’s termination decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the district

court’s termination decr ee. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no

adjudication of costs is made.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2



                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


                                                          Waltham, Massachusetts
                                                                December 1, 1998

$100,000

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Dr. Douglas Reed (the "Borrower"),
hereby promises to pay to the order of GelTex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Lender") the principal amount of One Hundred Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($100,000) (the "Principal") on or before the Maturity Date, as
hereinafter defined. This Note is given as evidence of a loan in an amount equal
to the principal amount of this Note. The purpose of the loan is to assist the
Borrower in financing the purchase of his new principal residence located at 90
Ruddock Road, Sudbury, Massachusetts.

     Interest shall not accrue on the outstanding Principal during the term of
this Note, unless Dr. Reed's employment with the Lender is terminated for
whatever reason prior to the Maturity Date. Upon Dr. Reed's termination,
interest shall accrue as of the date of such termination in an amount equal to
the Prime Rate of interest, as in effect from time to time (but in no event in
excess of the maximum rate permitted by then applicable law) as announced by
Fleet National Bank. Any accrued interest shall be due and payable on the
Maturity Date.

     The Maturity Date of this Note shall be the earlier of (i) fifteen days
following the closing date of the Borrower's sale of the property located at
3021 E. Thackeray Place, Salt Lake City, Utah or (ii) June 30, 1999.

     The Borrower hereby agrees to pay, to the extent permitted by law, all
reasonable costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable
attorneys' fees, incurred or paid by the Lender in enforcing this note, whether
or not litigation is commenced. This note shall be governed by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

     If any provisions hereof or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder
hereof, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other
than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be
affected thereby, and each provision hereof shall be valid and in force to the
fullest extent permitted by law.


<PAGE>   2


     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and shall take effect as a sealed instrument.

     Executed as of the day and year first written above.




/s/ Douglas Reed
----------------------------------
Douglas Reed

WITNESS:

/s/ Elizabeth Grammer
----------------------------------

Elizabeth Grammer
----------------------------------
Print Name
FIRST DIVISION

BARNES, P. J.,

MCMILLIAN and MERCIER, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

http://www.gaappeals.us/rules

September 27, 2018

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A17A1098. COATES v. THE STATE.

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

Hubert Coates was convicted of one count of possession of less than an ounce

of marijuana and four counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial

court sentenced Coates separately on each count, with the sentences to run

consecutively. Coates filed a motion for new trial and to amend his sentence, which

the trial court denied. Coates appealed, contending that the trial court erred in failing

to merge his four firearm convictions. In Coates v. State, 342 Ga. App. 148 (802

SE2d 65) (2017), we affirmedCoates’ convictions and sentences. However, inCoates

v. State, __ Ga. __ (__ SE2d __) (Case No. S17G1949, decided Aug. 27, 2018), the

Supreme Court reversed this Court’s decision, vacated Coates’ convictions and

sentences for the four counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and
remanded for the trial court to convict and sentence Coates on only one of those

counts. Therefore, we vacate our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the

Supreme Court as our own.

Judgment vacated in part and case remanded with direction. McMillian and

Mercier, JJ., concur.

2
#### Michelle Catherine THEER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Administrator Annie HARVEY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7437.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2011.

Decided: April 20, 2011.

Michelle Catherine Theer, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney *232General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michelle Catherine Theer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, *484, 120*S.Ct. 1595, *146*L.Ed.2d *542*(2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Theer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### FROST, Appellant, v. BAKER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Action by Maud F. Frost against James H. Baker.

No opinion. Judgment of county court affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-10-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-10-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         32,113
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  227,294
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,841,621
<PP&E>                                         41,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,883,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,394,004
<BONDS>                                        900,466
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       531
<OTHER-SE>                                     588,602
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,883,603
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,858
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               152,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                122,603
<INCOME-TAX>                                   47,816
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            74,787
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   74,787
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.69
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TAGENTERTAINMENT CORP. (the ‘‘Company’’) onForm 10-QSB for the period ending September  30,  2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the ‘‘Report’’), I, Steve Austin, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | TheReport 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 Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. |

/s/ SteveAustin                                   SteveAustin,Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer

December  21,2006

----
#### TULLY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & T. S. S. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by Michael Tully against the New York & Texas Steamship Company.

No opinion. Motions for reargument and for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied. Proceedings of the plaintiff stayed for 10 days. See 42 N. Y. Supp. 29.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         593,529
<SECURITIES>                                   138,281
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,521,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                   725,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,621,732
<PP&E>                                         665,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,241
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,524,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,643,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,524,070
<SALES>                                     13,604,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,604,296
<CGS>                                       12,874,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,371,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                196,045
<INCOME-TAX>                                    66,650
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            129,395
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   129,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17167 and #17168; CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-00345]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California (FEMA-4619-DR), dated 09/12/2021. *Incident:* Caldor Fire. *Incident Period:* 08/14/2021 and continuing.
 DATES: Issued on 09/12/2021. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 11/12/2021. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/13/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business ( print page 51707)Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/12/2021, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* El Dorado. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17167 5 and for economic injury is 17168 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) James Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2021-20054 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
# C_2021340EN.01000101.xml

| 24.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10271 — LIXIL/Schüco/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 340/01)

On 29 July 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10271. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10271. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---