alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 

No. 07–0697 

Filed November 14, 2008 

STATE OF IOWA, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

RAYMOND SCOTT BAINES, 

Appellee. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Stephen 

C. Gerard, II, Judge. 

The State appeals a district court ruling that the special sentencing 

provisions of Iowa Code section 903B.2 are unconstitutional. 

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AFFIRMED. SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN 

PART AND VACATED IN PART; CASE REMANDED FOR 

RESENTENCING.

 Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Elisabeth S. Reynoldson, 

Assistant Attorney General, Janet M. Lyness, County Attorney, and 

Deborah Farmer Minot and Anne M. Lahey, Assistant County Attorneys, 

for appellant. 

 Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds, 

Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellee. 
 2

PER CURIAM. 

The State appeals the district court’s ruling, in which the court 

refused to impose the special sentence provisions of Iowa Code section 

903B.2 (Supp. 2005) on Raymond Scott Baines, who had been convicted 

of one count of indecent exposure under chapter 709 and one count of 

indecent exposure in violation of an Iowa City ordinance. The district 

court found the sentencing statute was “illegal and unconstitutional.” In 

this case, the court is asked to decide whether the special sentencing 

provisions of Iowa Code section 903B.2 violate the United States 

Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the 

separation-of-powers doctrine, and the Equal Protection Clauses of the 

United States and Iowa Constitutions. 

Other than the identity of the defendant, the facts in this appeal 

are identical to those presented in a companion case, State v. Wade, __ 

N.W.2d __ (Iowa 2008). The applicable legal principles are also the same. 

Based upon the reasoning contained in Wade, we find that Iowa Code 

section 903B.2 is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Therefore, we 

remand this case with instructions that the sentence under section 

903B.2 be imposed. 

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AFFIRMED. SENTENCE 

AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART; CASE REMANDED FOR 

RESENTENCING. 

All justices concur except Streit, J., who takes no part. 

This opinion shall not be published.
ex4-8.htm





Exhibit 4.8


 



Summary of Agreement between Hainan Jinpan Electric Co. Ltd. and Hainan Si Hai Industrial Commercial Consolidated Company to lease factory building in the Haikou facility







Hainan Si Hai Industrial Commercial Consolidated Company (“Lessor”) and Hainan Jinpan Electric Co. Ltd. (“Lessee”) enter into agreement (“Agreement”) to lease factory building unit 5 located in the Jinpan Development Zone (the “Property”) on August 16, 2011.  Key terms of the lease are as follows:








	
·  

	
The Property is 6,952 square meters.  The Lessee is responsible for the renovating, equipping, and maintaining the Property













	
·  

	
The term of the lease is two (2) years, beginning on January 1, 2012 and ending on December 31, 2013.













	
·  

	
The monthly rent is RMB 76,472.  Rent is payable on a quarterly basis.  The Lessee shall in the first month of quarter, between the 1st and 7th day of the month, wire transfer the rent for the quarter to the Lessor’s bank account.













	
·  

	
The Lessor can terminate the lease in the following circumstances:













	
§  

	
the Lessee transfers or subleases the Property without the Lessor’s consent;








	
§  

	
the Lessee use the Property to conduct illegal activities or to harm the public interest;








	
§  

	
the Lessee fails to make rent payment for a cumulative period of three months; or








	
§  

	
the Lessee renovates or changes the structure of the Property without the Lessor’s consent.













	
·  

	
At the end of the lease term, if the Lessee cannot find another suitable property, the Lessor shall extend the term of the lease accordingly.  At the end of the lease term, if the Lessor wants to continue to lease the Property, then the Lessee has priority to renew the lease.













	
·  

	
In the event that the Lessor seeks to sell the Property, the Lessor shall give three months’ notice to the Lessee and give Lessee priority to buy the Property under the same terms as other buyers.  Sale of the Property by the Lessor to a buyer binds the buyer to the lease.













	
·  

	
If the Lessee seeks to terminate the lease prior the expiration of this Agreement, the Lessee shall give three months’ notice to the Lessor provided that the Lessee does not owe Lessor any unpaid rent.  If the Lessor agrees, then the Lessee can terminate the lease.













	
·  

	
If the Lessee fails to pay rent 10 days past the due date, then the Lessee shall pay the Lessor a late fee equal to 0.3% of rent owed for each day past due.













	
·  

	
If the Lessee fails to pay three (3) months of overdue rent on a timely basis and the Lessor is not successful in obtaining payment from the Lessee or if the Lessee vacates the Property, then the Lessor may (i) seize and dispose the Lessee’s equipment and other property (ii) take the security deposit to satisfy any damages, if the Lessor gives public notice and the Lessee fails to respond within fifteen (15) days of the publication of such notice.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/27/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      614,612
COMMITMENTS
 100,141   31,343  180,702  315,051  381,505  595,894  593,550   18,718   21,062

CHANGES FROM 08/20/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -12,799)
   3,512   -5,993   -5,942   -9,652   -2,161  -12,082  -14,096     -717    1,297

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    16.3      5.1     29.4     51.3     62.1     97.0     96.6      3.0      3.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      145)
      41       33       54       65       66      131      129
```

----

Updated August 30, 2013
William Sim SPENCER, Petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 19-7500.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

132040 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MICHAEL HALEY, Personal Representative of Stephen J. Markman, the Estate of Robert L. Woodcock, II, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132040 COA: 265794 Midland CC: 03-006892-NO WILLIAM NAHIKIAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian Eilf, and DAVID GOEMAN, Defendants, and

DANIELLE TAYLOR, Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian James Taylor, Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant, and

EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Cross-Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 1, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1218 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.

December 28, 2006

Clerk
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/05/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       45,997
COMMITMENTS
   5,927    2,832    3,366   24,703   28,236   33,996   34,435   12,001   11,563

CHANGES FROM 01/29/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        327)
    -513      715      193    1,011     -840      691       68     -364      259

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    12.9      6.2      7.3     53.7     61.4     73.9     74.9     26.1     25.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       55)
       8        8       10       35       26       50       40
```

----

Updated February 8, 2013
The ALLIANCE TO END CHICKENS AS KAPOROS, et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 18-1322.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 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-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      42,398,000
<SECURITIES>                                17,615,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               48,824,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (7,683,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           144,194,000
<PP&E>                                     978,440,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (129,732,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,072,448,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      107,245,000
<BONDS>                                  1,079,349,910
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      252,141,000
<PREFERRED>                                 69,688,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                               (592,976,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,072,448,000
<SALES>                                     63,671,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,671,000
<CGS>                                       40,631,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              103,907,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (56,517,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          32,734,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (26,453,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (26,453,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (26,453,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.70)


</TABLE>
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

NITEK, INC.

2:23-cv-00420

PHOTON WAVE CO., LTD.

PHOTON WAVE CO. LTD. 

52, Jugyang-daero 1763 beon-gil, 

Wonsam-myeon, Cheoin-gu, Yongin-si, 

Gyeonggi-do, 17166 

Repblic of Korea 

Kevin S. Kudlac, Esq.

Radulescu LLP

501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150

Austin, TX 78701

USA

9/15/23

Case 2:23-cv-00420-JRG Document 4 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 212
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:23-cv-00420 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00420-JRG Document 4 Filed 09/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 213
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1982

AN ACT

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Rome, New York, as the ‘‘Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs

Outpatient Clinic’’.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1982

AN ACT

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Rome, New York, as the ‘‘Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1982 EH

1 SECTION. 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic

3 in Rome, New York, shall after the date of the enactment

4 of this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Donald J.

5 Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clin6 ic’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference to such outpatient clinic in a law, regu9 lation, map, document, record, or other paper of the

10 United States shall be considered to be a reference to the

11 Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs Out12 patient Clinic.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

____________________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Gamehancement LLC

HTC Corporation

2:23-cv-593

Gamehancement LLC

12/12/2023 /s/ Isaac Rabicoff

Isaac Rabicoff

Rabicoff Law LLC

600 Mamaroneck Ave STE 400, Harrison, NY 10528

7736694590

isaac@rabilaw.com

(773) 669-4590

Eastern District of Texas

Case 2:23-cv-00593 Document 2 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 53
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                CFO CERTIFICATION


I,  Thomas  P.  Cawley,  certify  that:

     1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Peet's Coffee &
Tea,  Inc.;  and

     2.     Based  on  my  knowledge,  this  annual  report does not contain any
untrue  statement  of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to  make  the  statements  made,  in light of the circumstances under which such
statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual  report.



Date: March  15,  2004               /s/  Thomas  P.  Cawley
                                     -----------------------
                                     Thomas  P.  Cawley
                                     Vice President, Chief  Financial Officer,
                                     and Secretary
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

KATHLEEN D. LIEBERMAN and )

MARK J. LIEBERMAN )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No.: 4:23-CV-00887

)

JUSTIN PAUL and )

WENDY WALKER, )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S “UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME” 

Come now Defendants Justin Paul and Wendy Walker, in response to the Petitioners’ 

“UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY AND BRIEF IN 

SUPPORT” (ECF 31). While the Defendants were not contacted or consulted prior to the Motion, 

the Defendants do not object.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David C. Youll

David C. Youll, OBA No. 16553

Welsh & McGough, PLLC

2727 E. 21st St., Ste. 600

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114

Telephone: 918.585.8600

Telefax: 918.794.4411

david@tulsafirm.com

Attorney for Defendants Justin Paul/Wendy Walker

Case 4:23-cv-00887-SDJ-KPJ Document 32 Filed 06/05/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 609
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the above and the foregoing motion was 

filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which caused an electronic copy of the same to be served 

on the following counsel of record:

Kathleen Lieberman 

1704 Pine Hills Lane

Corinth, Texas 76210

Kathleen.lieberman@yahoo.com

/s/ David C. Youll

David C. Youll

Case 4:23-cv-00887-SDJ-KPJ Document 32 Filed 06/05/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 610
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2013

SHARON COBB, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:04-cv-00128; 1:05-cv-00300) Submitted: March 12, 2007 Decided: July 16, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John C. Hunter, THE JOHN C. HUNTER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Sidney P. Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* We note that, in addressing Cobb’s hostile work environment claim, the district court erroneously relied on Jennings v. Univ. of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill , 444 F.3d 255, 269 (4th Cir. 2006), when the opinion in that case had been vacated by a grant of rehearing en banc. See 4th Cir. R. 35(c)(granting of rehearing en banc vacates previous panel judgment and opinion). This error does not change the correctness of the district court’s decision, however, because the district court cited Jennings for legal principles that were set forth in Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , 510 U.S. 17 (1993), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775 (1998). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Sharon Cobb appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S. Postal Service, on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co. , 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. Cobb v. Potter , Nos. 1:04-cv-00128; 1:05-cv00300 (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 22, 2006; entered Aug. 23, 2006). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions- 3 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decision making process.

AFFIRMED
MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., petitioner, v. JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.

No. 18-495.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Vicky Ware BEY, petitioner, v. Joseph PONTE, et al.

No. 18-8290.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Robert Vincent SALCEDO, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5128

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies AT&T SERVICES INC.; ET AL., 2:23-cv-00468 XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies 10/06/2023 /s/ Philip X. Wang Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

pwang@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 10/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 695