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


<ARTICLE>                                 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                       JUL-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                            JAN-24-1999
<CASH>                                                                   18,598,000
<SECURITIES>                                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            10,428,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                              19,992,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         63,305,000
<PP&E>                                                                  542,810,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          868,684,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   175,616,000
<BONDS>                                                                 127,613,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    41,602,000
<PREFERRED>                                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                                    303,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                              237,368,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            868,684,000
<SALES>                                                                  10,785,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                        134,296,000
<CGS>                                                                    11,831,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           108,477,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         21,719,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       19,069,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (44,464,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           (15,555,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    (28,909,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           (31,047,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                                (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                (1.03)
        

</TABLE>
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March      31, 2009 |   |                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |        /s/ Jeffrey S. Keuntjes                                             |
|                                 |   | Jeffrey      S. Keuntjes                                                        |
|                                 |   | Vice      President - Finance (principal financial and accounting      officer) |

----

----
#### JOYCE v. ROME, W. & O. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

July, 1894.)

Master and Servant—Defective Appliances.

In an action against a railroad company for injuries received by plaintiff while in defendant’s employ, there was evidence that the coupling appliance on one of the cars was defective. *Held,*that it was a question for the jury whether the defect contributed to the injury, and whether it existed before the train started on its run, so that it might have been ■discovered by proper inspection.

Appeal from circuit court, Oswego county.

Action by Harvey Joyce against the Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburgh Railroad Company, while in defendant’s employ. From a judgment entered on a nonsuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made on the minutes, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

J. W. Shea, for appellant.

Mullin, Griffin *&*Walker, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Under the ruling in Bailey v. Railroad Co., 139 N. Y. 302, 34 N. E. 918, the duty rested upon the defendant to cause a proper inspection of the cars before they left Oswego. There was evidence tending to show that the appliances for coupling were defective; that there was an improper play of the drawhead, of from one to three inches. Whether this contributed to the injury, and whether it existed when the train left Oswego, and might, by *899proper inspection, have been discovered and remedied, were questions of fact, for the jury. So was the question of contributory negligence. See Goodrich v. Railroad Co., 116 N. Y. 398, 404, 22 N. E. 397; Ellis v. Railroad Co., 95 N. Y. 546. We think the case should have been submitted to the jury. All concur.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo BERRIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12655

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 6, 2011.

Anne R. Schultz, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Kathleen M. Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Michael Tarre, Attorney at Law, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alfredo Berrio appeals his 130-month sentence, imposed within the applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to a single count of conspiracy to import cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. Before Berrio pled guilty, he fled the country and failed to appear at his initial plea hearing. The district court then issued a warrant for his arrest. In 2003, after Berrio was arrested in Brazil for an unrelated offense, provisional warrants were issued for Berrio’s extradition to the United States. On direct appeal, Berrio argues that he should be given credit for the time he served in prison in Brazil from the time he was served the provisional arrest warrants in 2003 for the instant charge until the time his United States sentence commenced.

The Attorney General through the BOP, and not the district courts, is authorized, under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), to compute sentence credit awards after sentencing. *Dawson v. Scott,*50 F.3d 884, 889 (11th Cir.1995). The Attorney General delegated his authority in this area to the BOP. *United States v. Lucas,*898 F.2d 1554, 1555-56 (11th Cir.1990). We have held that the granting of credit for time served is in the first instance an administrative, not a judicial, function. *United States v. Flanagan,*868 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir.1989). The district court, therefore, cannot circumvent the Attorney General’s initial discretion concerning whether to credit a defendant’s time in custody prior to sentencing. *Lucas,*898 F.2d at 1555.

Furthermore, an inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies with the BOP before seeking judicial relief. *Id.*In fact, the district court does not have jurisdiction to consider a defendant’s claim if he fails to exhaust his administrative remedies. *Id.*

A claim concerning credit for time served is not appropriate on direct appeal, and should be filed as a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, against the BOP. *See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Lamer,*60 F.3d 745, 746 (11th Cir.1995) (noting that defendant filed a § 2241 peti*945tion seeking credit for time he spent at his home under pre-trial, restrictive conditions); *Dawson,*50 F.3d at 886 (noting that defendant filed a § 2241 petition after exhausting his BOP administrative remedies, seeking credit for time he spent at a halfway house). Accordingly, we will not consider Berrio’s claims here on direct appeal.

Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.1

1

. Berrio's request for oral argument is denied.
(September 17, 1987)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Claude Alexander, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leif, J.), rendered on January 28, 1986, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Sullivan and Kassal, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

                    On February 8, 2001, a notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , Vol. 66, No. 27, Page 9592, that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Joseph Mirro for a permit (PRT-037832) to import one polar bear (                    *Ursus maritimus*) trophy taken from the Western Hudson Bay population, Canada for personal use.                 

                    Notice is hereby given that on April 2, 2001, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361*et seq.*) the Fish and Wildlife Service authorized the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.                 

Documents and other information submitted for these applications are available for review by any party who submits a written request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Phone (703) 358-2104 or Fax (703) 358-2281. 

Dated: March 13, 2001. 

Anna Barry, 

Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. 

[FR Doc. 01-10335 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
#### ELBERT, Respondent, v. HAEBLER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by August Elbert against Theodore Haebler and another.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

R. S. Swezey, for appellants.

R. B. Honeyman, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 4(B)(5)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Viryanet Ltd. (the Company) of our independent auditors report dated July 15, 2003, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Viryanet Ltd. appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002.



|Tel-Aviv, Israel |  | KOST FORER & GABBAY             
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------
|July 15, 2003    |  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 00571

- CV
TED KALDIS A / K

/ A TED LEFTERIS KALDI S , Appellant
V.
CREST FINANCE , Appellee Appeal from the 281st District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012

- 71189 ).
This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on May 22, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no rever sible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered March 1 2 , 2015

. Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown. Opinion delivered by Jus tice Higley.
CIRCUIT/DISTRICT AUTHORIZED JUDGESHIPS

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

RECOMMENDATION

U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS 2P

NINTH 29 2P

U.S. DISTRICT COURTS 66P, 7 T/P, 2 T/E

ALABAMA NORTHERN 8 T/E

ARIZONA 13 2P, T/P

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 28 9P, T/P

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 6 4P

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 14 6P

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 13 2P

COLORADO 7 2P

DELAWARE 4 2P

FLORIDA MIDDLE 15 5P

FLORIDA NORTHERN 4 1P

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 18 3P, T/P

GEORGIA NORTHERN 11 2P

IDAHO 2 1P

INDIANA SOUTHERN 5 1P

IOWA NORTHERN 2 1P

KANSAS 6 T/E

MISSOURI EASTERN 8 T/P

NEBRASKA 3 1P

NEW JERSEY 17 3P

NEW MEXICO 7 T/P

NEW YORK EASTERN 15 2P

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 28 2P

NEW YORK WESTERN 4 1P

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 5 T/P

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 1.5 2P

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 3.5 1P

TEXAS EASTERN 8 2P, T/P

TEXAS NORTHERN 12 1P

TEXAS SOUTHERN 19 4P

TEXAS WESTERN 13 6P

P = PERMANENT; T/P = TEMPORARY MADE PERMANENT; T/E = EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FOR FIVE YEARS

TABLE 1. ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIPS OR CONVERSION OF EXISTING JUDGESHIPS RECOMMENDED BY THE 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 11-19

IN RE: THE HONORABLE FRANK Q. NEBEKER COURTROOM

Before DAVIS, Chief Judge, and SCHOELEN, PIETSCH, BARTLEY, GREENBERG, 

ALLEN, MEREDITH, TOTH, and FALVEY, Judges.

O R D E R

On July 25, 1989, the Honorable Frank Q. Nebeker was sworn in as the first Chief Judge 

of the then newly created United States Court of Veterans Appeals. With a handful of 

administrative staff, he spent the first several months of his appointment "setting up" the Court. 

On October 16, 1989, in a ceremony presided over by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Judges 

Kenneth B. Kramer and John J. Farley, III, were invested as the second and third Judges of the 

new Court. Chief Judge Nebeker then convened the Court for the first time and commenced its 

operations. 

Chief Judge Nebeker oversaw all facets of creating a new federal court without antecedent. 

The Court received its first appeal in November 1989, issued its first opinion in December 1989, 

and heard its first oral argument in February 1990. The Court moved into its current location at 

625 Indiana Avenue in November 1990, and in 1999 the Court's name was changed to the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. As the only Judge of the Court to be appointed as 

Chief Judge, Judge Nebeker served in that role for eleven years – more than twice as long as any 

who have followed. Chief Judge Nebeker retired from active service in November 2000. He 

currently is a Senior Judge of the Court and periodically serves in recall status.

The Court wishes to recognize and honor the dedicated service of this extraordinary jurist 

and the Court's first Chief Judge. It is therefore fitting that in this, the Court's 30th year, the 

courtroom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims be named The Honorable Frank Q. 

Nebeker Courtroom.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2019 PER CURIAM.
**EXHIBIT      8**

**LIST      OF SUBSIDIARIES**

| Name                of Subsidiary    |   | Jurisdiction                of Incorporation |
|--------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |                                         |
| MIND                C.T.I. Inc.      |   | New                Jersey                    |
|                                 |   |                                         |
| MIND                Software SRL     |   | Romania                                      |
|                                 |   |                                         |
| DIROT                COMP SRL        |   | Romania                                      |
|                                 |   |                                         |
| Sentori,                Inc.         |   | Delaware                                     |
|                                 |   |                                         |
| MIND                Software Limited |   | United                Kingdom                |

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of USIP.Com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Craig Burton,President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, asadopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Craig Burton          |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Craig Burton              |
| President, USIP.Com, Inc. |
| March 24, 2004            |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41630

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-529-ALL

--------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Hernandez-Hernandez appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence for being found in the United States, without

permission, following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). 

Although Hernandez-Hernandez signed a waiver provision as part of

his plea agreement, we need not determine the effect of that

waiver because Hernandez-Hernandez cannot prevail on the merits

of his appellate arguments.
No. 04-41630

-2-

For the first time on appeal, Hernandez-Hernandez argues

that the sentencing provisions in § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. 

Hernandez-Hernandez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Hernandez-Hernandez contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Hernandez-Hernandez

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review. 

Also for the first time on appeal, Hernandez-Hernandez

argues that the district court erred when it sentenced him

pursuant to the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines

held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). Application of the Sentencing Guidelines in their

mandatory form constitutes error that is plain. United States v.

Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 267 (2005). However, nothing in the record indicates

that the district court would have imposed a different sentence

if it had known that it was not bound by the sentencing

guidelines. Accordingly, district court’s error did not affect
No. 04-41630

-3-

Hernandez-Hernandez’s substantial rights. See id. at 733-34.

Hernandez-Hernandez has not established reversible plain error. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40129 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ORALIA MICHELLE CUELLAR, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CR-735-1
Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender ap p o i nted to represent Oralia Michelle Cuellar h as moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in a ccordance with Anders v. C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2 011). Cuellar has not filed a response. We have r eviewed counsel’s brief a nd t h e r elevant portions o f the record r eflected t h erein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the a ppeal presents no n onfrivolous issue for appellate revi e w . A c c o rdingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 17, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40129 Document: 00512473828 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013No. 13-40129

G RANTED, counsel i s excused from further responsibilities herein, a n d t h e APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40129 Document: 00512473828 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013