alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. RO N A LD LERO Y FELTS, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 10261 D. C . No . 1 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 3 4 7 - DA E ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f o rth e D is tr ic t o f

H aw a ii D a vi d A . E z r a , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ay14, 2013 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T H O M A S , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ona l d L e r oyF e l t s appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntand c h a lle n g e s h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n an d3 0 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rr e c e iv in g c h ild pornogr aphy , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2252( a ) ( 2) and ( b) ( 1) ; and pos s e s s i on of c h ildp o rn o g r ap h y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) an d( b ) ( 2 ) . P u r s u an t to



# FI LED MA Y17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10261 2 A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 1967) , F e l t s ’ s c ouns e l ha s f i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng tha tthe r e ar e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of r e c o r d . W e h a v e p r o v id e dF e lts th e o p p o rtu n ityto f ile ap r o s e s up p le m e n ta l b r ie f . N o p r o s e s up p le m e n ta l b r ie f o ran s w e r in g b r ie f

h a s b e e n f

ile d . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f a s to F e lts ’s c o n v ic tio n . W e a c c o r d in g lya f

f irm F e lts ’s c o n v ic tio n . F el t s w ai ved the ri gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence . B ec ause the re cord di sc l oses n o ar g u ab le issu e a s to th e v alid ity o f th e s en ten cin g w aiv er , w e d ism iss F elts’s ap p e a l a s to h is s e n te n c e . Se e U ni te d States v . W

at s on , 5 8 2 F .3 d9 7 4 , 9 8 6 - 8 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. A F F I R M E D in p a r t ; D I S M I S S E D in p a r t .
Jeremy J. GODWIN, petitioner, v. David DAVEY, Warden.

No. 18-1379.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 22, 2019

No. 04-19-00034-CV

INTEREST OF D.M.H., JR.,

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA00016

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights, 

which must be disposed of by this Court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. 

TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Appellant T.W. has filed a motion for extension of time to file 

appellant’s brief. Appellant T.W.’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on March 11, 

2019.

Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of February, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,818
<SECURITIES>                                    56,789
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                       919
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,093
<PP&E>                                           3,262
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,770
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,454
<COMMON>                                       124,301
<OTHER-SE>                                    (54,626)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,049
<SALES>                                         18,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,263
<CGS>                                              266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   533
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 469
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,489)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's statements of operations, balance sheets and statements of cash
flows and is qualified by reference to such financial statements contained
within the Company's Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2000
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0001081919
<NAME>     GTC TELECOM CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          231336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   632551
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      13450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1096052
<PP&E>                                          553998
<DEPRECIATION>                                  181633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1512653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3916219
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         19968
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2423534)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1412653
<SALES>                                        4696087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4696087
<CGS>                                          4032587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4032587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7696832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                475241
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              108737
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (7175773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (7180991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (7180991)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.42)


</TABLE>
Delano Marco MEDINA, aka Michael David Allen Bell, aka William Anders Bryant, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9196.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of St. John Knits, International, Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending November 2, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Bruce Fetter, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 27, 2004



/s/    Bruce FetterBruce Fetter Co-Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Richard GREGORY, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 17-9483.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
Patrick LANIER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5280.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          65,642
<SECURITIES>                                    66,021
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               204,659
<PP&E>                                          20,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,604
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                     181,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,769
<SALES>                                         70,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,749
<CGS>                                           35,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,033
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,249)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,185
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,811
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,374
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,374
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1630

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend permanently

environmental remediation costs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 29, 1999

Mr. COYNE (for himself and Mr. RANGEL) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend

permanently environmental remediation costs.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Brownfields Clean-up

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 1630 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EXPENSING OF ENVI2 RONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

3 Section 198 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

4 (relating to expensing of environmental remediation costs)

5 is amended by striking subsection (h).

Æ
John G. WESTINE, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9085.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2018076EN.01000101.xml

| 28.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2016-2017 SESSION

Sittings of 9 to 12 May 2016

The Minutes of this session have been published in

  OJ C 211, 30.6.2017
  .

The Minutes of this session have been published in

OJ C 211, 30.6.2017

TEXTS ADOPTED

Sittings of 25 and 26 May 2016

The Minutes of this session have been published in

  OJ C 217, 6.7.2017
  .

The Minutes of this session have been published in

OJ C 217, 6.7.2017

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
Samuel Isaac MARQUEZ, petitioner, v. Timothy FILSON, Warden, et al.

No. 18-5172.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUARTERLY
REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      12,099,834
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,149,101
<PP&E>                                       8,658,299
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,723,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,230,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,864,592
<BONDS>                                      1,923,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,821,250
<PREFERRED>                                      2,752
<COMMON>                                        72,972
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,545,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,230,381
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (3,251,114)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (150,612)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,401,726)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,401,726)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)


</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

s0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139518

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139518 COA: 291161 Wayne CC: 99-005813 LAVERE BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 1, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
# Official Journal C 143/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.143.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 143 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5224 June 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.143.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 143

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5224 June 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 143/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2009/C 143/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 4 |
| 2009/C 143/03 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 6 |
| 2009/C 143/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5534 — Access/PCH/LBI) (1) | 10 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 143/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2009/C 143/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

4

2009/C 143/03

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

6

2009/C 143/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5534 — Access/PCH/LBI) (1)

10

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 143/05 | Euro exchange rates | 11 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 143/05

Euro exchange rates

11

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2009/C 143/06 | Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/95-98/09 | 12 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2009/C 143/06

Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/95-98/09

12

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 04/19/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      205,911
COMMITMENTS
  55,016    7,850   32,808   87,927  133,393  175,750  174,051   30,161   31,861

CHANGES FROM 04/12/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -3,429)
  -5,875     -903     -837    3,681   -1,400   -3,031   -3,139     -398     -290

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    26.7      3.8     15.9     42.7     64.8     85.4     84.5     14.6     15.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      204)
      64       26       58       73       84      166      148
```

----

Updated April 22, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TWENTY-FIVE 8MM FILMS, etc., Defendants, and William D. Schmidt, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79-3249.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 1981.

Decided Sept. 8, 1981.

*977William D. Schmidt, in pro. per.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GOODWIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and GILLIAM *, District Judge.

*

The Honorable Earl B. Gilliam, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Cali-fomia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The only substantial issue in this appeal from a forfeiture of obscene merchandise is whether the government caused a fatal delay to occur in the forfeiture proceedings. In *United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs,*402 U.S. 363, 373 — 4, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 1406-07, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971), the Supreme Court construed 19 U.S.C. § 1305(a) “to require intervals of no more than 14 days from seizure of the goods to the institution of judicial proceedings for their forfeiture and no longer than 60 days from the filing of the action to final decision in the district court.... ” This forfeiture consumed 75 days.

Fourteen days were lost because Schmidt filed a pro se claim for the seized property with the district court, but did not know that he had to serve a copy of his claim on the government. Accordingly, the government did not learn of Schmidt’s claim until it moved for a default judgment. The district court concluded before trial that Schmidt’s failure to serve the government delayed the forfeiture proceedings by fourteen days. At trial, three days were lost because of a holiday recess and because a juror became ill. When the court reconvened to receive the verdict, 75 days had elapsed between the time the government seized the property and the time the judgment of forfeiture was entered.

We are satisfied that Congress did not intend to frustrate forfeitures made under 19 U.S.C. § 1305(a) by reason of the passage of time if the delay was not caused by any fault of the government. *United States v. 2,200 Paper Back Books,*565 F.2d 566, 573 (9th Cir. 1977). The fourteen days lost by the failure of the claimant to serve papers cannot be charged against the government. This leaves the government one day over the *Thirty-seven Photographs*60-day limit. The three-day delay caused by juror illness and the holiday recess, however, would not have affected the *Thirty-seven Photographs*time limit but for Schmidt’s failure to serve the government. Under these circumstances, the forfeiture proceedings were concluded within the *Thirty-Seven Photographs*time limit.

The judgment is affirmed.
**d.**

### Of**-Srf/V**

### OF**.-*****HTce AA/O** **■ ■ sr** **:■■;■**

### \U**7/iJS****Tt*iS****DocumentT**

## it**0******"TWvf foii.ois** **TO ay** 

### THIS,**(?0t/A7's -.** **jsy**

### Z.**/Jo**

### Tfit

### /z-TS**£a. HuST** **DSt 7~tf** **TO**

### *,**/ft**

### 1,

# C^

## D***THIS CO** **en**
```

```

----

Updated July 3, 2012