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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      37,920,277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,849,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                   571,834
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,947,491
<PP&E>                                       8,034,450
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,306,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             123,191,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,765,314
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,920
<OTHER-SE>                                 117,335,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               123,191,245
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,021,544
<CGS>                                        4,589,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               52,266,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (46,269,261)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (46,269,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (46,269,261)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 08** 
**- 7173** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

CARLOS GERARD WATKINS ,
Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distr ict of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Cameron McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 0:05

- cr

- 00090

- CMC

- 1 )

Submitted : January 10, 2011 Decided: January 2 8 , 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per c uriam opinion

.

Carlos Gerard Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Carlos Gerard Watkins appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. In light of

our recent decision in United States v. Stewart , 595 F.3d 197 (4th

Cir. 2010), we vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings consistent with Stewart

. We deny Watkins’

motion for recalculation of his sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not a id the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
# Q1 FY24 NO FEAR REPORT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

______________________________________________________________________________

GARY TAYLOR, 

 Petitioner / Appellant,

v.

GEORGE ANTHONY TAYLOR and

ANNE MARIE TAYLOR,

 Defendants / Appellee.

Cause No. DA-23-0554

ORDER EXTENDING DUE DATE FOR 

OPENING BRIEF 

UPON READING the unopposed Motion for an extension of time of due date for the 

Opening Brief and finding good cause appearing therein.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opening brief in the above-listed case is GRANTED 

an additional thirty (30) days to file, and must be filed by December 22, 2023.

Dated this _____ day of __________________________.

________________________

Judge / Clerk 

of the Supreme Court

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

November 28 2023

11/28/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0554
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Timebeat.com Enterprises Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack Stein, Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
___/s/ Jack Stein______Jack Stein,Chairman21
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2021-4)]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.

      ( print page 52544)    

# SUMMARY:

The Board approves the fourth quarter 2021 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The fourth quarter 2021 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.139. The fourth quarter 2021 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.473. The fourth quarter 2021 RCAF-5 is 0.446.

# DATES:

*Applicability Date:*                         October 1, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available at                     *www.stb.gov.*

Decided: September 15, 2021.

By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.

Aretha Laws-Byrum,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2021-20353 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 231 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to deauthorize 

the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area Critical Restoration Project. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2015 

Mr. MURPHY of Florida (for himself and Mr. ROONEY of Florida) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

to deauthorize the Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area 

Critical Restoration Project. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION. 

4 Section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Develop5 ment Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–303; 110 Stat. 3768) 

6 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(E) PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION.— 

8 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The project identi9 fied as the ‘Ten Mile Creek Water PreVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:04 Jan 14, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H231.IH H231

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 231 IH

1 serve Area Critical Restoration Project’, 

2 carried out pursuant to this paragraph, 

3 shall no longer be authorized as a Federal 

4 project upon execution of a transfer agree5 ment between the Secretary and the South 

6 Florida Water Management District. 

7 ‘‘(ii) REQUIREMENT.—A transfer 

8 agreement referred to in clause (i) shall re9 quire that the South Florida Water Man10 agement District operate the transferred 

11 project as an environmental restoration 

12 project to provide water storage and water 

13 treatment options.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021507EN.01000701.xml

| 16.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 507/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 507/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10550 – PHILLIPS 66 / FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP / WESTERN OIL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 507/02)

On 7 December 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10550. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10550. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### Mullin *v.*Sisson *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

April, 1890.)

Assignment fob Benefit of Creditors—Directory Provisions of Statute.

Laws IT. Y. 1888, c. 294, amending the general assignment act, (Laws 1877, c. 466,) so as to provide that, in an assignment for benefit of creditors, the residence, kind of business carried on by the debtor at the time, the place where conducted, and, if in a city, the street and number, should be specifically stated, is merely directory; and the failure of the assignor to fully comply therewith will not render the assignment void. Following *Tagga/rt*v. *Sisson,*9 N. Y. Supp. 7S8.

Appeal from special term, Jefferson county.

Action by Joseph Mullin, as receiver of William W. Herrick and Henry H. Ayers, against Humphrey Sisson and others. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint. Laws 1877, c. 466, as amended by Laws H. Y. 1888, c. 294, provides that, in an assignment for the benefit of creditors, the residence, kind of business carried on by the debtor at the time, the place where conducted, and, if in a city, the street and number, should be specifically stated.

Argued before Hardin, P. J„ and Martin and Merwin, JJ.

*Lansing & Lansing,*for appellant. *W. M. Rogers*and *John O. MoCartin,*for respondents.

Merwin, J.

This action is brought to set aside, as fraudulent and void as to creditors, a general assignment made by the defendants Herrick & Ayers to the defendant Sisson. The claim of the plaintiff is that the assignment is void by reason of its failure to specify the kind of business carried on by the debtors, and their place of business, as required by section 2 of chapter 466 of the Laws of 1877, as amended by chapter 294 of 1888. The same question, as to the same assignment, was passed upon by this court, in *Tag*
      *302
      *gart*v. *Sisson,*9 N. Y. Supp. 758, adversely to the plaintiff’s position. Following that case, the judgment here must be affirmed.

It is also claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff, as receiver appointed in proceedings supplementary to execution, cannot maintain this action. This point was not passed upon by the trial court, and it is not necessary to decide it here. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-24789) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock
Option Plan, the 1995 Stock Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of First
Virtual Holdings Incorporated and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
333-42855) of First Virtual Holdings Incorporated and the related Prospectus of
our report dated January 16, 1998, except for the first paragraph of Note 6 and
Note 10, for which the date is March 20, 1998, with respect to the financial
statements included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 1997.




         
                                           ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
March 26, 1998
#### Stephen Nichols, Appellant, v Marie Hack, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[946 NYS2d 528]

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David Michael Barry, J.), entered May 12, 2011. The amended judgment dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict.

*1608It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
Exhibit 10.86


 


SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


for


LOAN AGREEMENT dated December 30, 2020


 


This Settlement Agreement for
the Loan Agreement dated December 30, 2020 is executed by and between:


 


American West Pacific
International Investment Corporation (“AWP” or the “Lender”)


1 Sansome Street,
Suite 3500, San Francisco, CA 94104


 


and


 


Borqs Technologies,
Inc. (“Borqs” or the “Borrower”)


5201 Great America
Parkway, Suite 3250, Santa Clara, CA 95054


 


together known as
the “Parties”.


 


Pursuant to the Loan Agreement
dated December 30, 2020, the Lender has provided a loan to the Borrower in the amount of $1 million, with monthly interest at 12% per
annum, and the principal due and payable on June 30, 2021.


 


In lieu of re-payment of the
principal in cash to the Lender, the Parties hereby agree that the entire loan principal amount of $1 million shall be returned to the
Lender by the assignment of the escrowed Borqs ordinary shares currently held at Continental Stock Transfer and Trust Company for the
benefit of AWP, with details as following:


 


		●	The re-payment shall be in a number of Borqs ordinary shares according to:



$1,000,000 divided by the value of Borqs
ordinary shares valued at $0.63 per share


= 1,587,302 shares (the “Repayment
Shares”);


 


		●	Upon the delivery of the Repayment Shares to the possession of AWP, the repayment of the entire loan principal
of the Loan Agreement dated December 30, 2020 is deemed completed;



 


		●	Monthly interest, payable in cash, shall accrue up to the date the repayment of loan principal is completed;



 


		●	The Borrower, at its own cost, shall immediately prepare and file a registration statement on form F-1
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to register the Repayment Shares for resale, not later than 10 days after the delivery of
the Repayment Shares to AWP.



 


[Signature Pages to Follow]


 




     


     


    

 


The Parties agree to the terms
of this Settlement Agreement and have caused the execution by their respective authorized representatives hereof.


 


	DATED: June 8, 2021	The Lender:
	 	 
	 	AMERICAN WEST PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Sherry H. Jiang  
	 	 	Sherry H. Jiang
	 	 	President
	 	 
	DATED: June 8, 2021	The Borrower:
	 	 
	 	BORQS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Anthony K. Chan
	 	 	Anthony K. Chan
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer


 






    2
#### PEOPLE ex rel. SOMMERVILLE, Appellant, v. ROOSEVELT et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1897.)

Proceeding on the relation of William T. Sommerville against Theodore Roosevelt and others. E. H. Hawke, Jr., for appellant. Theodore Connoly, for respondents.

No opinion. Proceedings affirmed, with costs.
#### DAVIS, Respondent, v. MICHIGAN FIRE *&*MARINE INS. CO. OF DETROIT, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 16, 1896.)

Action by Isaac Davis against the Michigan Fire & Marine Insurance Company of Detroit.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except FOLLETT, J., dissenting.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1083 

CA 14-00133 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

AMBER C. BLAIR AND MARK C. BLAIR, 

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, 

V ORDER

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

DEMARIE & SCHOENBORN, P.C., BUFFALO (JOSEPH DEMARIE OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. 

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (BRIAN R. BIGGIE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County

(Deborah A. Chimes, J.), entered September 26, 2013. The order

granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the

amended complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d

985). 

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Harvey, Appellant.

— Mahoney, P. J.

After plea negotiations, defendant, represented by counsel, agreed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of first degree assault in exchange for a promised sentence of an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *3 Vs*to 10 years. As part of the plea, defendant clearly and unequivocally waived his right to appeal. The promised sentence was imposed. Defendant now appeals, contending that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The People ask this court to enforce defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal and dismiss the appeal. In *People v Jandrew*(101 AD2d 90), this court noted that after a plea of guilty, a defendant’s right to appeal from a sentence or from the denial of a suppression motion are statutory and not of constitutional dimension. In that case, it was held that a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal from a suppression motion will be given effect *(id.,*p 91). We reaffirmed this holding in *People v Lucas*(106 AD2d 821). The same reasoning should apply to a waiver of the right to appeal from a sentence.

We note that the recent decision of the Court of Appeals in *People v Pollenz*(67 NY2d 264) does not mandate a different result. In that case, a statute which purported to disallow an appeal as of right to the Appellate Division where the sole issue raised is the excessiveness of a negotiated sentence imposed by a judgment rendered upon a guilty plea was declared unconstitutional *(id.).*The basis for such a decision was that the statute imposed a limitation or condition on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division in contravention of NY Constitution, article VI, § 4 (k) *(id.,*pp 267-268). The Court of Appeals did not address the issue of whether the right to *944appellate review of a sentence is of constitutional dimension *(id.,*p 268, n 3).

In conclusion, we hold that where, as part of a negotiated plea, a defendant clearly waives his right to appeal from the offered sentence, and the sentence is lawful, such waiver will be given effect so long as it is knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Therefore, in this case, defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.1

PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS OF
MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2021


The Company’s named executive officers are eligible for annual incentives, payable in cash, under the Management Incentive Compensation Plan (the “MICP”). The MICP payout targets, which are achieved if the Company meets certain goals set out in the annual operating plan, are approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) each year. The MICP performance measures and their weightings are also approved by the Committee each year. The Committee also reviews and approves a schedule that details the required Company performance and resulting MICP payouts for each performance measure. If the threshold performance goals are met, MICP payouts equal at least 50% of target. The Committee maintains the discretion to vary from the formula to decrease an MICP payout. Actual MICP payouts are delivered after the Company’s results are known and applied to the MICP.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2168 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To make the current Dungeness crab fishery management 

regime permanent 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2168 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘West Coast Dungeness 

3 Crab Management Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY MANAGEMENT. 

5 Section 203 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to approve 

6 a governing international fishery agreement between the 

7 United States and the Republic of Poland, and for other 

8 purposes’’, approved November 13, 1998 (Public Law 

9 105–384; 16 U.S.C. 1856 note) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking subsection (i); and 

11 (2) by redesignating subsection (j) as sub12 section (i). 

Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE FLORIDA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT

& PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., and DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND 

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL 

WAGERING,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-505

[May 27, 2021]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Business and 

Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering; L.T. Case Nos. 

DOAH #18-4997 and DBPR #2018-040787.

Bradford J. Beilly and John Strohsahl of Beilly & Strohsahl, P.A., Ft. 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Kristen M. Fiore of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, Tamara S. Malvin of 

Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Wilbur E. Brewton and Kelly B. Plante 

of Brewton Plante, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellee Calder Race Course, Inc.

Joseph Yauger Whealdon, III, Chief Legal Counsel, Department of 

Business & Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee Department 

of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel 

Wagering.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.