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



<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,107
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      22,022
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,110
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 22,455
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      22,455
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        22,455
<LOANS>                                    277,731
<ALLOWANCE>                                 (3,922)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             371,988
<DEPOSITS>                                 246,909
<SHORT-TERM>                                44,540
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,140
<LONG-TERM>                                 23,799
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        26
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             371,988
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             23,815
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,752
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               472
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            29,039
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          12,218
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,716
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       11,105
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                2,285
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              9,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                341
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                2.95
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,051
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,995
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              2,416
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            (1,716)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   79
<RECOVERIES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           (3,922)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        (3,922)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0



</TABLE>
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2793

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United

States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of

Missouri

Kenneth Wayne Smith, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 6, 1997

 Filed: 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Wayne Smith appeals from the final judgment

entered in the District Court for the Western District of

1

Missouri after Smith pleaded guilty to three counts of

altering odometer readings, in violation of 49 U.S.C.

§ 32703(2). The district court imposed three concurrent

sentences of 18 months in prison and one year supervised
-2-

release. Smith now challenges his sentences, arguing

that the district court erred in
-3-

applying an enhancement for more than minimal planning

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2F1.1(b)(2) (1995). 

We conclude the district court did not clearly err in

assessing the enhancement, because it was undisputed

that, over a period of several months, Smith had altered

odometer readings on nineteen vehicles. See id. § 1B1.1,

comment. (n.1(f)) (more than minimal planning deemed

present in any case involving repeated acts over period

of time, unless it is clear each instance was purely

opportune), .3(a) (court to consider all acts committed

by defendant); United States v. Sykes, 4 F.3d 697, 699-

700 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (repetitive nature of

criminal conduct, alone, may warrant increase).

Moreover, it was undisputed that after Smith altered the

odometers, he instructed another individual to sell the

vehicles at auctions using the names of sales companies

with which he had no affiliation. Cf. United States v.

Gjerde, 110 F.3d 595, 604-05 (8th Cir.) (more than

minimal planning where defendant&s scheme to fraudulently

obtain loan involved approving loan, placing hold on

accounts, and misrepresenting financing and purchase of

equipment), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3157

(U.S. Aug. 11, 1997) (No. 97-265); United States v.

Starr, 986 F.2d 281, 282 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)

(bank fraud involved more than minimal planning where

defendant opened one account using alias, but closed it

six months later; later opened account at different bank

using different alias; and then directed acquaintance to

deposit check written on closed account into other

account).
-4-

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT

Appellate case name: Eric Baumgart v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00320-CR

Trial court case number: 1382166

Trial court: 183rd District Court of Harris County

Party filing motion: Appellant

After construing appellant’s “motion to vacate void judgment” as an amendment to 

appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration, the en banc panel voted unanimously to deny the 

motion for reconsideration.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd 

 Acting for the Court

En Banc Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, 

Massengale, Brown, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Date: February 11, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 778-779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-194]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-122-840)


Notice of Correction to Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
from Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 2004

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel O'Brien or David Neubacher, at 
(202) 482-1376 or (202) 482-5823, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

CORRECTION:

    On November 24, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published its final results of the antidumping administrative review of 
the order of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (subject 
merchandise) from Canada for the period April 10, 2002, through 
September 30, 2003. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Canada 69 FR 68309 (November 24, 2004). Subsequent to the issuance of 
the final results, we identified an inadvertent error in the Federal 
Register.
    In the ``Assessment'' section of the review notice, the Department 
indicated that it would ``issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of 
review.'' The ``within 15 days of publication'' description is 
incorrect in the notice. Section 356.8 of the applicable regulations 
provides that the Department shall not order liquidation until the 
``forty-first day after the date of publication of the notice ...'' 
following an administrative review of merchandise exported from Canada 
or Mexico. Accordingly, the notice should be corrected to indicate that 
the Department will send assessment instructions to CBP ``on or after 
the 41st day after publication.''
    This correction is issued and published in accordance with section 
777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.


[[Page 779]]


    Dated: December 29, 2004.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-194 Filed 1-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-08617) pertaining to the Integ Incorporated 1990 Incentive and Stock
Option Plan, the 1991 Incentive and Stock Option Plan, and the 1996 Directors'
Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66225) pertaining to
the 1994 Long-Term Incentive and Stock Option Plan, and Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-42921) pertaining to the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
our report dated February 12, 1999, with respect to the financial statements of
Integ Incorporated, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1998.

                                       /s/   Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March  29, 1999
# C_2011080EN.01001802.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/18

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2011 — Vtesse Networks Ltd v Commission

(Case T-54/07) (1)

1

(Application for annulment - State aid - Telecommunications - Tax on non-domestic property of undertakings in the United Kingdom - Decision finding that the measure at issue does not constitute aid - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 80/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vtesse Networks Ltd (Hertford, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Mercer, Barrister, and J. Ballard, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and H. van Vliet, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: AboveNet Communications UK Ltd, (London, United Kingdom); Gamma Telecom Ltd (Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom) and VTL (UK) Ltd (Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom), represented by I. Forrester QC, C. Arhold and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: British Telecommunications plc, (London, United Kingdom), (represented by G. Robert and C. Berg, Solicitors) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by V. Jackson, Agent, and by C. Vajda QC and T. Morshead, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/951/EC of 12 October 2006 on the United Kingdom’s application of the tax on non-domestic property to telecommunications infrastructure in the United Kingdom (No C-4/2005 (ex NN 57/2004, ex CP 26/2004)) (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 70)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Vtesse Networks Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vtesse Networks Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Commission.

| 3. | The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, AboveNet Communications UK Ltd, Gamma Telecom Ltd, VTL (UK) Ltd and British Telecommunications plc shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, AboveNet Communications UK Ltd, Gamma Telecom Ltd, VTL (UK) Ltd and British Telecommunications plc shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3815 

To repeal the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2014 

Mr. MARINO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the 

Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act 

of 2012. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF BIGGERT-WATERS FLOOD INSUR4 ANCE REFORM ACT OF 2012. 

5 Effective as of the enactment of the Biggert-Waters 

6 Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (title II of division 

7 F of Public Law 112–141; 126 Stat. 916), such Act (other 

8 than section 100203 (126 Stat. 916)) is repealed, and the 

9 provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act (other 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3815 IH

1 than by such section 100203) are restored or revived as 

2 if such Act had not been enacted. 

3 SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT. 

4 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

5 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

6 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

7 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

8 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

9 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 

10 House of Representatives, as long as such statement has 

11 been submitted prior to the vote on passage of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. William Ray MEINSEN

No. COA17-13

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
Exhibit 13.2



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 report of CDG Investments Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-20-F for the financial year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

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



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





January 15, 2006

/s/
Gregory Smith

By:  Gregory Smith

Chief Financial Officer



1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30677

Summary Calendar

GARY DANIEL RODGERS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

R. MCINTYRE, Deputy; JAMAL PERRIER, Deputy; J. BOUDOIN, Deputy; 

NEWELL NORMAND, Sheriff, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-2642

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerry Daniel Rodgers appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

lawsuit. The district court entered final judgment in favor of defendants on 

February 17, 2017. Rodgers’s deadline to file a notice of appeal was therefore 

March 20, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). It was not 

filed until September 26, 2017.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30677 Document: 00515293455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
No. 17-30677

2

Timely filing of a notice of appeal “is both mandatory and jurisdictional.”

Colbert v. Brennan, 752 F.3d 412, 416 (5th Cir. 2014). Without a timely notice, 

we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Even though the Federal Rules direct that 

“[a]n appeal . . . may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district 

clerk,” FED. R. APP. P. 3(a)(1), our Circuit has allowed “the timely filing of a 

document[] which is the equivalent of a notice of appeal” to suffice, Stevens v. 

Heard, 674 F.2d 320, 322 (5th Cir. 1982).

At a minimum, a notice of appeal must (1) specify the party taking the 

appeal; (2) identify the judgment being appealed; and (3) “name the court to 

which the appeal is taken.” FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1). We are to “liberally 

construe” these requirements, but “[t]his principle of liberal construction does 

not . . . excuse noncompliance with the letter” of the Rule. Smith v. Barry, 502 

U.S. 244, 248 (1992).

Here, the only document that could arguably serve as the equivalent of 

a timely notice of appeal is Rodgers’s “Motion and Order to Release Evidence,” 

filed on March 6, 2017. That motion names Rodgers as the moving party, but 

does not identify the judgment from which he intended to appeal, or the court 

to which he planned on taking the appeal. It is not enough to satisfy “only one 

of the three requirements of a notice of appeal.” Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 

766 (5th Cir. 2010). The Motion and Order to Release Evidence therefore did 

not serve as a timely notice, and we lack jurisdiction to hear Rodgers’s appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

 Case: 17-30677 Document: 00515293455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6573

JAY TIMOTHY LURZ, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

JON P. GALLEY, Warden; OFC. L. WHITEMAN, CO2; LT. ARNOLD, 

H.U.#6 Manager; LT. WHITE, H.U.#2 Manager; OFC. P. D. 

TASKER, CO2; LT. TRUE; OFC. KEARNS, CO2 (H.U.#2); OFC. T. 

MCDOWELL; OFC. FAULKNER, (CO2 H.U.#2); LT. D. P. RALEY; LT. 

D. L. WHITE; F. J. NASTRI, Hearing Officer; OFC. J. TICE, 

CO2; PURNELL, Ofc. CO2; R. M. FRIEND, Lt, H.U.#2 Manager; T. 

PERRY, Sgt.; SKIDMORE, Ofc, CO2; SHAFFER, Ofc, CO2; SHIMKO, 

Ofc., CO2; WEAVER, Ofc., CO2; K. MCDOWELL, Ofc., CO2; 

WILSON, Ofc., CO2; HUFF, Ofc., CO2; SIPES, Ofc., CO2; 

ROBERTSON, Ofc., CO2; WINEBRENNER, Ofc., CO2; BEEMAN, Ofc., 

CO2; SIRIUS, Ofc., CO2; MCKENZIE, Sgt.; MIDDLETON, Ofc., 

CO2; GRAHAM, Ofc.; THOMAS B. PRICE, H.O.; WINTERS, Ms., Case 

Manager; CASE MANAGEMENT SEG REVIEW TEAM; H. B. MURPHY, 

Assistant Warden; PUFFENBARGER, Ofc., CO2; FAZENBAKER, Ofc., 

CO2; AL DAVIS, H.O.; REAMS, Ofc., CO2, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. 

(1:07-cv-00073-AMD) 

Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 9, 2008 

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Jay Timothy Lurz, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

Jay Timothy Lurz appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in part to Defendants, dismissing some 

claims without prejudice to Lurz alleging them in a new action, 

and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the portion of this appeal challenging 

dismissal of claims without prejudice, see Domino Sugar Corp. 

v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 

1993), deny the motion for appointment of counsel, and affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lurz 

v. Galley, No. 1:07-cv-00073-AMD (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2008). 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. 

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART
Ex10.185 May RRA 7.25-2022


Exhibit 10.185


Counterpart to Registration Rights Agreement
May 28, 2014
The undersigned hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably agrees as a Guarantor, as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated May 6, 2014 by and among Endo Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Endo Finco Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Guarantors party thereto, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., relating to the 7.25% Senior Notes due 2022, to be bound by the terms and provisions of such Registration Rights Agreement.





Exhibit 10.185
EXECUTION VERSION




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first written above.
	
			
	ENDO VENTURES BERMUDA LIMITED

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ Susan Hall

	 
	Name:
	Susan Hall

	 
	Title:
	Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         314,202
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    428,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,501,524
<PP&E>                                         411,249
<DEPRECIATION>                               (260,364)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,885,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,348,047
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       115,325
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,939
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,885,851
<SALES>                                        396,345
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,427,285
<CGS>                                        1,051,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,051,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,598,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,303,837)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,223,572)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,303,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Alexander Paul SAINT CLAIR

No. COA16-836

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

NO ERROR IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
In the MATTER OF: A.L.W.

No. COA17-157

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED.