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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
SHAREHOLDER'S EQUITY AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,764
<PP&E>                                          27,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,350
<BONDS>                                            719
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,477
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,235)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,311
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,139
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (289)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,678
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,603
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,603
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1459

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Adam Brent Branton

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: September 9, 2021

Filed: September 30, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Adam Branton appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he

pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to

1The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the sentence. Branton has moved for appointment of new counsel.

Upon careful review, we affirm. We do not decide whether the district court

properly found Branton to be a career offender, as his career offender status did not

affect the Guidelines calculations, and thus any error was harmless. See United States

v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 939 (8th Cir. 2013) (error in Guidelines calculation was

harmless where offense level would have remained the same). We conclude that the

district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court

properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in

weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62

(8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under

deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails

to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,

or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the

court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v.

McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has

varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its

discretion in not varying downward further).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Branton’s motion

for counsel.

______________________________

-2-
Ontavious J. Love, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 8, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on June 17, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Brian M. Gibbons be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Gibbons shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Gibbons shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136602 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136602 

 COA: 284187 

Wayne CC: 07-005125

FRED DAMRON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer    I, B. Alva Schoomer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.    /s/ B. Alva Schoomer B. Alva Schoomer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer August 15, 2008
# C_2008107EN.01004402.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/44

---

Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-132/07)

(2008/C 107/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 23 July 2007 together with the implied decisions of 9 August 2007 and 11 September 2007 supplementary thereto and the decision of 9 November 2007 in so far as they reject the applicant's requests of 9 April 2007, 11 May 2007 and 11 October 2007 for authorisation to (i) publish documents (in the light of all legal considerations, in particular Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 24 of the Staff Regulations and any copyright and data protection provisions) and (ii) report (ex-)Commissioners and Commission officials to the prosecuting authorities; and damages in the sum of at least EUR 10 000.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission's decision of 23 July 2007 together with the implied decisions of 9 August 2007 and 11 September 2007 supplementary thereto and the decision of 9 November 2007 in so far as they reject the applicant's requests of 9 April 2007, 11 May 2007 and 11 October 2007 for authorisation to (i) publish documents (in the light of all legal considerations, in particular Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 24 of the Staff Regulations and any copyright and data protection provisions) and (ii) report (ex-)Commissioners and Commission officials to the prosecuting authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision of 23 July 2007 together with the implied decisions of 9 August 2007 and 11 September 2007 supplementary thereto and the decision of 9 November 2007 in so far as they reject the applicant's requests of 9 April 2007, 11 May 2007 and 11 October 2007 for authorisation to (i) publish documents (in the light of all legal considerations, in particular Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 24 of the Staff Regulations and any copyright and data protection provisions) and (ii) report (ex-)Commissioners and Commission officials to the prosecuting authorities;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the sum of at least EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage and damage to health caused to the applicant by the decisions which are to be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the sum of at least EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage and damage to health caused to the applicant by the decisions which are to be annulled;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
SMITH v. CITY OF VILLA RICA.

S17A0072

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: June 5, 2017

A. Joseph Nardone, Jr., Nardone & Crecelius LLC, 10475 Medlock Bridge Road, Building 800, Suite 820, Johns Creek, Georgia 30097, Bill W. Crecelius, Jr., Bill W Crecelius Jr. P.C., 10475 Medlock Bridge Rd., Bldg 800, Suite 820, Johns Creek, Georgia 30097, for Appellant.

Charles D. Mecklin, Jr., Tisinger Vance, P.C., P.O. Box 2069, Carrollton, Georgia 30112-0039, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.
STATE v. Robert Wayne JOHNSON.

No. 14P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Robert W. Johnson, Marion, for Johnson, Robert W.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Tom Florner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of January 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
# C_2007117EN.01002601.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/26

---

Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Mineral and Chemical Company ‘EuroChem ’v Council

(Case T-84/07)

(2007/C 117/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Open Joint Stock Company Mineral and Chemical Company ‘EuroChem ’(Moscow, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested regulation, and in particular Article 1 thereof, insofar as it concerns the applicant and its related companies specified in recital 14(a) and (b) of the contested regulation; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested regulation, and in particular Article 1 thereof, insofar as it concerns the applicant and its related companies specified in recital 14(a) and (b) of the contested regulation; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Russian producer and exporter of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate, seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 of 19 December 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1).

1

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Community institutions established the normal value for the applicant wrongly and made a wrong comparison with the export price and hence made an erroneous finding of dumping. The Community institutions thereby committed a series of manifest errors of assessment and violated fundamental principles of Community law.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Community institutions violated Article 11(1) and (3) of the Basic Regulation (2) by failing to carry out an interim review in conjunction with the expiry review under Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and by adopting the contested regulation extending the duties at their original level, whilst having had the duty and the possibility to initiate an interim review either ex-officio or pursuant to sufficient evidence provided by the applicant.

2

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 365, p. 26.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

2

---
----

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2005/26/EG der Kommission vom 21. März 2005 zur Erstellung eines Verzeichnisses von Lebensmittelzutaten oder Stoffen, die vorläufig aus Anhang IIIa der Richtlinie 2000/13/EG ausgeschlossen werden

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 75 vom 22. März 2005)

Seite 34, Anhang, erste Zutat „Glutenhaltiges Getreide“, vierter Gedankenstrich:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

Seite 34, Anhang, vierte Zutat „Sojabohne“, dritter Gedankenstrich:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

Seite 34, Anhang, fünfte Zutat „Milch“, erster Gedankenstrich:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

Seite 34, Anhang, sechste Zutat „Nüsse“, erster Gedankenstrich:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

Seite 34, Anhang, Fußnote (1):

anstatt:

„und daraus gewonnene Erzeugnisse, soweit das Verfahren, das sie durchlaufen haben, die Allergenität, die von der EFSA für das Erzeugnis ermittelt wurde, von dem sie stammen, höchstwahrscheinlich nicht erhöht.“

muss es heißen:

„und daraus gewonnene Erzeugnisse, soweit das Verfahren, das sie durchlaufen haben, die Allergenität, die von der EFSA für das Erzeugnis ermittelt wurde, von dem sie stammen, wahrscheinlich nicht erhöht.“

----
State v. Camellia Brown

353P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Camellia Boyd Norton Brown, for Brown, Camellia Boyd Norton.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Camellia Brown, For Brown, Camellia.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of September 2016 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Yukon Gold
Corporation, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2006
(the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 13, 2006


                                        /s/ Howard Barth
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Howard Barth, CEO and President
                                        (Chief Executive Officer and
                                        President of Yukon Gold
                                        Corporation, Inc.)

Dated: September 13, 2006


                                        /s/ Rakesh Malhotra
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Rakesh Malhotra, Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Chief Financial Officer of Yukon Gold
                                        Corporation, Inc.)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. and will be retained by Yukon Gold
Corporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3991 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 96-hour 

physician certification requirement for inpatient critical access hospital 

services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. WALDEN, Ms. JENKINS, and Mr. 

LOEBSACK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove 

the 96-hour physician certification requirement for inpatient critical access hospital services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Critical Access Hos5 pital Relief Act of 2014’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3991 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVING MEDICARE 96-HOUR PHYSICIAN CER2 TIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR INPATIENT 

3 CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL SERVICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1814(a) of the Social Se5 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (6), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) in paragraph (7), at the end of subpara9 graph (D)(ii), by striking ‘‘and’’ and inserting a pe10 riod; and 

11 (3) by striking paragraph (8). 

12 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub13 section (a) shall apply with respect to items and services 

14 furnished on or after January 1, 2014. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4125 

To authorize the construction of the expansion of Shasta Dam in California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. COSTA (for himself, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. BERA of California, and Mr. CA ́RDENAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the construction of the expansion of Shasta 

Dam in California. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Shasta Dam Expan5 sion Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHASTA DAM EXPANSION. 

7 Section 103(d)(1)(B) of title I of Public Law 108– 

8 361 (the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act, 118 Stat. 

9 1681) is amended by— 

10 (a) adding after clause (iii) the following: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4125 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZA2 TION.—If the Secretary determines a 

3 project described in clause (i), subclause 

4 (I) of subparagraph (A) is feasible, the 

5 Secretary, subject to appropriations, is au6 thorized to carry out the project in a man7 ner that is substantially in accordance with 

8 the recommended plan, and subject to the 

9 conditions described in the feasibility 

10 study.’’; and 

11 (b) striking in clause (ii) ‘‘the project’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘a project described in clause (i), subclause (I) of subpara13 graph (A)’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS