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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          19,943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,520
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,255
<INVENTORY>                                      7,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,607
<PP&E>                                         115,817
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 376,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,743
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           409
<OTHER-SE>                                     228,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   376,845
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               369,372
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,986
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,842
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,631
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,211
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,211
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.88<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83<F1>
<FN>
<F1>A three-for-two stock split effected in the form of a 50% dividend was
distributed on August 24, 1998. Prior Financial Data Schedules have not been
restated for the recapitalization.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Decision (EU) 2015/437 of the European Parliament and of the CouncilShow full title

Decision (EU) 2015/437 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2014 on the mobilisation of the European            Union Solidarity Fund         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Decision (EU) 2015/437 of the European Parliament and of the Council

# of 17 December 2014

# on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,                        

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the                           Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(2), and in particular point 11 thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions                              struck by disasters.

(2)Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013(3) allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million (2011 prices).

(3)Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

(4)Serbia has submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning floods.

(5)Croatia has submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning floods.

(6)Bulgaria has submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning floods,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised                     to provide the sum of EUR 79 726 440 in commitment appropriations.                  

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised                     to provide the sum of EUR 79 726 440 in payment appropriations                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall be published in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Strasbourg, 17 December 2014.

*For the European Parliament*                            

*The President*                            

M. Schulz                            

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

B. Della Vedova                            

1

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.                           

2

OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.                           

3

Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years                              2014-2020 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MIGUEL ALVARENGA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00183-CR

Appeal from the

120th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20080D00891) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Miguel Alvarenga attempts to appeal his conviction for terroristic threat, a lesser included

offense. Finding that Appellant has no right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

Rule 25.2(a)(2) governs the defendant’s right to appeal in a criminal case:

A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal under Code of Criminal

Procedure article 44.02 and these rules. The trial court shall enter a certification

of the defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other

appealable order. In a plea bargain case--that is, a case in which the defendant’s

plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant--a

defendant may appeal only:

(A) those mattes that were raised by written motion and filed and ruled

on before trial, or

(B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.

TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2).

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, but did not include the trial court’s certification

of his right to appeal as required by Rules 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The clerk’s record was filed in
-2-

this Court on June 16, 2008. The record contains a certification, signed by the trial court,

indicating that Appellant has no right to appeal. By letter dated June 17, 2008, the clerk of this

Court notified Appellant that the certification indicated that he had no right of appeal in this case

and requested a response. Appellant’s attorney has responded to the Court’s notice, and has

agreed that Appellant voluntarily waived his right to appeal when he entered the plea bargain. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

September 18, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Form S-8 and the
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-07295)
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Director's Stock Option Plan and
Employees and Consultants Stock Option Agreement/Plan, the Form S-8
(Registration No. 333-58303) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, and 1998
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-87369)
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Form S-8 (Registration No.
333-44736) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Post-Effective
Amendment No. 6 on Form S-3 to Form SB-2 (Form SB-2 No. 333-476-LA) for the
registration of 4,477,402 shares of common stock and 328,500 warrants to
purchase common stock, the Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-88051) for the
registration of 2,014,036 shares of common stock, the Form S-3 (Registration No.
333-52326) for the registration of 697,533 shares of common stock, and the Form
S-3 (Registration No. 333-95177) for the registration of 136,130 shares of
common stock, of our report dated February 14, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of SuperGen, Inc. included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 22, 2001
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 27, 2017

s1218

Order 

Clerk

December 27, 2017

155313

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155313

COA: 334462

Manistee CC: 12-004219-FC

PAUL JOSEPH HARD, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,482,872
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         275,962
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,939,419
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 30,835,141
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      30,869,516
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        30,407,833
<LOANS>                                    144,701,746
<ALLOWANCE>                                    380,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             219,462,184
<DEPOSITS>                                 171,466,629
<SHORT-TERM>                                16,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,270,776
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,544
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             219,462,184
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             10,426,017
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,648,326
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               294,470
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            15,368,813
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,467,523
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,371,344
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,997,469
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   32,605
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,725,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,468,680
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     901,480
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   901,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.47
<LOANS-NON>                                    288,786
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               438,500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   91,105
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              380,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        380,000
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1


CERTIFICATION


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Radica
Games Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



Dated:  April 15, 2003


                                            /s/ Patrick S. Feely
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Patrick S. Feely
                                            Title: President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II In the Matter of the No. 53302

- 2

- II Personal Restraint of MARQUINTON LAMAR ROBERSON, Petitioner. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

S UTTON , J.

— Marquinton Roberson seeks relief from personal restraint imposed following his 2019 judgments and sentences for first degree unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and while armed with a firearm (cause no. 16

- 1

- 04554

- 7) and second degree assault while armed with a deadly weapon (cause no. 17

- 1

- 03346

- 6). In the first judg ment and sentence, the trial court imposed a base sentence of 87 months plus a 36

- month firearm sentencing enhancement. In the second judgment and sentence, the trial court imposed a base sentence of 63 months, plus a 12

- month deadly weapon sentencing enh ancement, to be served concurrently with the first judgment and sentence. In this petition, Roberson claims that (1) his attorney and the prosecutor told him that the 36

- month firearm sentencing enhancement would run concurrently with the 87

- month base

se ntence, (2) when he signed his plea statement he was on opium and under stress due to his wife’s Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two January 13, 2020No. 53302

- 2

- II

2

pregnancy, and (3) his attorney and the prosecutor pressured him to sign his plea statement. But on page 4 of his Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to Non

- Sex Offense (Statement), he initialed and acknowledged that the State would be recommending a consecutive firearm sentencing enhancement. He presents no evidence that his plea was affected by drug use or stress. And contrary to his claim of being pre ssured, on page 9 of his Statement he stated that he was making his plea freely and voluntarily, that no one had threatened harm causing him to make the plea, and no one had promised him anything other than in the plea agreement. He does not present
any c ompetent evidence that his plea was invalid. In re Pers. Restraint of Waggy , 111 Wn. App. 511, 518, 45 P.3d 1103 (2002). Roberson does not present grounds for relief from restraint. We therefore deny his petition and deny his request for appointment of counsel. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

SUTTON, J. We concur:

WORSWICK, J.

MAXA, C.J.
STATE v. FERGUSON.

No. COA08-735.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CRS235798, 06CRS241687, 06CRS241691, 07CRS214062).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded for new sentencing hearing.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of B.T.D. and C.M.D.

Appellate case number: 01-16-00582-CV

Trial court case number: 12-FD-1807

Trial court: 306th District Court of Galveston County

The reporter’s record initially was due in this case on August 3, 2016, and currently is 

due on August 26, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4, 35.1. On August 18, 2016, court reporter 

Karen S. Bernhardt file a motion for an extension of time to September 9, 2016, to file the 

reporter’s record of the trial (approximately 1300 pages, covering nine days of testimony).

1 The 

motion is GRANTED. The portion of the reporter’s record to be prepared by Karen S. Bernhardt

is due to filed in this Court no later than Friday, September 9, 2016.

Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent-child relationship, the Court is 

required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of July 25, 2016, the date the 

notice of appeal was filed in this proceeding, so far as reasonably possible. See Tex. R. Jud. 

Admin. 6.2, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. F app. (West 2013); see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 28.4. Accordingly, no further extensions will be granted.

The reporter’s records to be prepared and filed by Kimberly Keeler and Dale Lee remain 

due on August 26, 2016.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 23, 2016 

 

1

Information provided to the Clerk of this Court shows that court reporters Kimberly 

Keeler and Dale Lee also participated in the trial court proceedings. On August 16, 2016, 

we granted Kimberly Keeler’s request for an extension and extended the time to file the 

reporter’s record to August 26, 2016.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41140

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN JOSE LOPEZ-GARCIA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-167-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Jose Lopez-Garcia appeals the sentence of 84 months imposed

following his plea of guilty to one count of being unlawfully presentin the United

States following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm.

Lopez-Garcia argues that in light of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586

(2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), his sentence was

unreasonable. According to Lopez-Garcia, this court’s precedent improperly

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41140

2

restricted the district court’s ability to deviate from the Guidelines absent

extraordinary circumstances, a standard rejected in Gall. He also challenges the

imposition of a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, asserting

that the Guideline is flawed and not entitled to deference because, like the

Guideline at issue in Kimbrough, it was not based on empirical data or adopted

pursuant to the usual Sentencing Commission procedures.

Although Lopez-Garcia argued that he should receive a downward

departure or variance based on the over-representation of his criminal history,

his cultural assimilation, and his former drug addiction, he did not raise the

specific challenges to his sentence that he raises here, i.e., that the sentencing

regime was unduly restrictive or that the 16-level enhancement Guideline is

flawed and not entitled to deference. Accordingly, we review those arguments

for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 520 F.3d 381, 387-88

(5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531F. 3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.

2008). Given our dispositions of similar challenges in Rodriguez-Rodriguez and

Campos-Maldonado, we conclude that Lopez-Garcia has failed to demonstrate

any reversible plain error. To the extent that Lopez-Garcia may have preserved

a substantive reasonableness challenge to his sentence based on the arguments

he raised in the district court, he has failed to overcome the presumption of

reasonableness that we afford the district court’s sentence. See United States v.

Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135905 & (21) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 135905 

 COA: 279278 
 Wayne CC: 01-012943-01

DARNELL D. ANDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for a new trial and an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 

p0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Larry McLeod PULLEY.

No. 42P04-7.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 15, 2016.

Larry McLeod Pulley, for Larry McLeod Pulley.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 14th of April 2016 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Lee County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of April 2016."
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 7, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135548 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### ROY A. REDDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 135548 COA: 278673 WCAC: 06-000079 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t0430 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.

May 7, 2008

Clerk