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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                      44,865
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               81,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           126,275
<PP&E>                                                      75,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                               9,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             591,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,725,955
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                        59
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                              (1,134,927)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               591,439
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 0
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         1,679,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          48,710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (1,748,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (1,748,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (1,748,767)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.31)



</TABLE>
Independent Accountants' Report



Board of Directors
Community Investors Bancorp, Inc.


We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated statements of financial
condition, earnings, comprehensive income, and cash flows of Community Investors
Bancorp, Inc. as of September 30, 2002 and 2001, and for the three-month periods
then ended. The financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's
management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated statement of
financial condition as of June 30, 2002, and the related consolidated statements
of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein) and in our report dated July 26, 2002, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated statement of
financial condition as of June 30, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, in relation to the consolidated statement of financial condition from
which it has been derived.


/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP



Cincinnati, Ohio
November 13, 2002
1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2554

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Fray Moreno-Ramirez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 5, 2009

Filed: October 23, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Fray Moreno-Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute

500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846, and two counts of distribution of 50 grams or more

of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The

district court1

 sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison and

5 years of supervised release. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
-2-

386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking permission to withdraw and arguing that the sentence

is unreasonable.

We conclude that Moreno-Ramirez’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United

States v. Wadena, 470 F.3d 735, 737 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review); United

States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for district court

to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f),

which apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or

defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief). After reviewing the record independently

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that

counsel inform Moreno-Ramirez about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing

and for certiorari.

______________________________
HILL v. HILL, et al.

No. 638P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 28, 2006.

W. Scott Jones, Asheville, for Garford Tony Hill, et al.

Prior report: 173 N.C.App. 309, 622 S.E.2d 503.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of July 2006 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay During the Pendency of Appellant's Motion to Renew the Stay Previously Entered by the Court:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 28th day of July 2006."

Justices MARTIN and TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                         JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                                   6,911,512
<SECURITIES>                                                99,620
<RECEIVABLES>                                              153,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         7,243,963
<PP&E>                                                   1,011,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                             186,326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           9,713,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,113,613
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                   251,083
<OTHER-SE>                                               2,974,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             9,713,081
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           422,205
<CGS>                                                      365,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            3,966,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        (148,417)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (3,395,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (1,934,007)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          (1,836,720)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (3,770,727)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.15)


</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1086/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1086/2013 of 30 October 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification            for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Raschera (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1086/2013                     

# of 30 October 2013

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications [Raschera (PDO)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy’s application                              for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Raschera’ registered under Commission                              Regulation (EC) No 1263/96(2).

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2) (a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendment                              should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.3.****Cheeses**U.K.

#### ITALYU.K.

Raschera (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 19.                           

3

OJ C 109, 16.4.2013, p. 12.
Dismiss; Opinion Filed January 16, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01105-CV

MARJURITA D. KELLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF 

THE ESTATE OF D’LISA M. KELLEY, Appellant

V.

THE CITY OF DALLAS, KEVIN MANSELL, AND ABIGAIL DOMINGUEZ, Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-02799

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns

Since filing her notice of appeal on September 11, 2019, appellant has not communicated 

with this Court or taken any further steps to prosecute the appeal. She has not paid the appellate 

filing fee and has not filed an affidavit indicating her inability to pay nor anything with this Court 

asking for relief from inability to pay.

On October 22, 2019, the district clerk informed the Court the clerk’s record would not be 

filed because appellant had not paid the clerk’s fee. That same day, we directed appellant to file, 

no later than November 1, 2019, written verification she had made arrangements to pay the fee or 

was entitled to proceed without paying the fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a). Although we 

cautioned appellant that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the appeal without further 
–2–

notice, appellant has not complied. See id. 37.3(b). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id., 

42.3(b),(c). 

191105F.P05

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MARJURITA D. KELLEY, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 

OF D’LISA M. KELLEY, Appellant

No. 05-19-01105-CV V.

THE CITY OF DALLAS, KEVIN 

MANSELL, AND ABIGAIL 

DOMINGUEZ, Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-02799.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, 

Justices Molberg and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees the City of Dallas, Kevin Mansell, and Abigail Dominguez 

recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Marjurita D. Kelley, Individually and as 

the Representative of the Estate of D’Lisa M. Kelley.

Judgment entered this 16th day of January, 2020.
##### 



Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-3) and
related Prospectuses of EOP Operating Limited Partnership for the registration of:



| |  |  | $4.0 billion of debt securities and warrants exercisable for debt securities
(registration statement no. 333-58976);                                                                                                           
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |  |  | $325.0 million of senior exchangeable notes (registration statement no. 333-47754);                                                                                                                                            
|
| |  |  | $2.0 billion of debt securities and warrants exercisable for debt securities (registration statement no. 333-43530);                                                                                                           
|
| |  |  | $2.0 billion of debt securities and warrants exercisable for debt securities (registration statement no.
333-58689);                                                                                                           
|
| |  |  | and the registration statement
(Form S-3MEF) of EOP Operating Limited Partnership for the registration of $60.0 million of debt securities and warrants exercisable for debt securities (registration statement no. 333-42928),

of our report dated February 5, 2003, except for Note 26, as to which the date
is March 13, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
EOP Operating Limited Partnership included in the Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the
caption Selected Financial Data in the Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2002.



| | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Ernst & Young LLP
| | ---------------------------------------

Chicago, Illinois
March 27, 2003
James D. BLYTH and Elk Country Realty, Inc. v. Samuel E. McCRARY, Country Squire Real Estate, Country Squire Enterprises, Inc., Country Squire Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a, Country Squire Real Estate, Peter Hession and Wife Karen Hession, Scott Greenhalge, Blue Sky Group, Inc. and William Gunn.

No. 507P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Jeffrey W. Norris, for Blyth, et al.

Fred H. Moody, Jr., Bryson City, for McCrary & Country Squire.

Ed Hensley, for Peter & Karen Hession.

Derek Wenzel, Waynesville, for Greenhalge & Blue Sky Group.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ____, 646 S.E.2d 813.

*483*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 26th day of October 2007 by Defendants (McCrary & Country Squire) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of January 2008,"
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45604

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL LYNN RAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: July 11, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentence of seven years determinate, for possession 

of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Michael Lynn Ray pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-

2432(c)(1). The district court sentenced Ray to a determinate term of seven years to be served 

consecutively to a previous unrelated sentence. Ray appeals asserting that the district court 

abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Ray’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRICK ANTWAN DINGLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,

Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00209-FL-2)

Submitted: November 22, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas R. Wilson, GREENE & WILSON, P.A., New Bern, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, J. Gaston B. Williams, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Antwan Dingle pled guilty, without a written 

plea agreement, to possessing a firearm after having been 

convicted of a felony and aiding and abetting his father, Bobby 

Batts, in the same crime. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)(1) (2006). 

Dingle challenges his sixty-three-month sentence on appeal, 

arguing the district court lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis 

for his sentencing enhancements. We affirm.

This court reviews the district court’s factual 

findings regarding a sentencing enhancement for clear error and 

the legal interpretations of the Guidelines de novo. United 

States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2010). We will 

“find clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). 

Finally, we give “great deference” to the district court’s 

credibility determinations. United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 

330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009).

We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented 

during the sentencing hearing and conclude the Government bore 

its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts 

supporting the enhancements for possession of a firearm in 

connection with another felony offense and the presence of a 
3

vulnerable victim. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§§ 2K2.1(b)(6), 3A1.1(b)(1) (2010). We therefore affirm the 

district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
HORNE v. NASH-ROCKY MOUNT BD. OF EDUC.

No. COA06-1647.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 4, 2007.

Certification Date December 27, 2007.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (TA-17240).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

                    FLORIDINO'S INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
                             PARENT COMPANY GUARANTY

Floridino's International Holdings, Inc., hereby guarantees absolutely,
unconditionally and irrevocably, the full payments when due to Fidra Holdings,
Ltd. from Toho Holdings, Inc. for mortgage and promissory notes dated December
13, 1999 in the amounts of $300,000, $143,577.94 and $56,422.06. This shall
include all interest and late charges, attorneys' fees and collection and court
costs.

Fidra Holdings, Ltd. shall be entitled to recover from the undersigned all costs
incurred in connection with the enforcement of this Guaranty, including but not
limited to reasonable attorneys' fees.

Dated this 13 day of December, 1999.

/s/ Nick Pirgousis
----------------------
Nick Pirgousis,
Chairman of the Board