alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                        
<ARTICLE>                                                      5
<LEGEND>                                
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RRC
FL FIVE, INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/98
</LEGEND>                               
<CIK>                                        0001066248
<NAME>                                       RRC FL FIVE, INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                                   1
                                              
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                    73,860
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            186,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                12,226,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                         2,111,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        10,621,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                     100
<OTHER-SE>                                             1,871,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          10,621,719
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,496,135
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            466,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         531,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       823,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (382,211)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (382,211)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (382,211)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0.00
        
 

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Mollie Elizabeth B. MCDANIEL

No. 161A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 25, 2018

Gilda C. Rodriguez, Attorney at Law, for McDaniel, Mollie Elizabeth B.

Deborah Greene, Assistant Attorney General, Ted Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*580***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 1st of June 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of June 2018."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID WILLIAMS
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 13

- 3016

[ November 18, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin J. Bidwill , Judge; L.T. Case No. 11

- 008020CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nicholas I. Igwe, Assistant Attorney Gen eral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. See Blackm o n v. State , 121 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2013), Allwine v.

State , 978 So. 2d 272, 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

G ROSS

, M AY and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
James CAPPS and Sharon Capps, Plaintiffs v. Steve MCSWAIN, Maplestone Construction, LLC, Carl Von Isenburg and GeoScience & Technology, P.A., Defendants.

No. COA16-1264

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 6, 2018

REVERSED.
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Stuart L. LYON, KBA Member

No. 42900, Respondent.

No. 2003-SC-0460-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Aug. 21, 2003.

*OPINION AND ORDER*

On April 1, 2003, Respondent Stuart L. Lyon entered a plea of guilty pursuant to *North Carolina v. Alford,*400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to perjury in the first degree, a Class D felony, KRS 523.020, in Jefferson Circuit Court.1 SCR 3.166 provides that an attorney who pleads guilty or is convicted of a felony as defined in KRS 500.080 shall be automatically suspended from the practice of law. The period of suspension shall take effect automatically beginning on the day follow-*871mg the plea of guilty or finding of guilt by a judge or jury or upon the entry of judgment, whichever occurs first. SCR 3.166. KRS 523.020. Respondent, thus, was automatically suspended from the practice of law on April 2,2003.

Complainant Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) now requests an Order by this Court confirming the automatic temporary suspension of Lyon pursuant to SCR 3.166 until superseded by a subsequent order. The KBA also requests an order by this Court directing Lyon to comply with the provisions of SCR 3.390 and notify his clients of his temporary suspension from the practice of law.

Upon the foregoing facts and charges, it is ordered that the recommendation of the KBA be adopted. Therefore, it is ordered that:

> 1. Respondent Stuart L. Lyon be suspended from the practice of law, effective April 2, 2003, and shall continue until the entry of a superseding order by this Court, pursuant to SCR 3.166.

> 2. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Respondent shall, within ten (10) days from the entry of this order, notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent them, notify all courts in which he has matters pending of his suspension from the practice of law, and furnish copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association.

All concur.

ENTERED: August 21, 2003.

/s/ Joseph E. Lambert Chief Justice

1

. The case is styled *Commonwealth v. Stuart L. Lyon,*Jefferson Circuit Court Criminal Action No. 02-CR-0968.
Harris Emanuel FORD v. Erik A. HOOKS Secretary of N.C. Department of Public Safety

No. 133P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 7, 2018

Mr. Harris Emanuel Ford, for Ford, Harris Emanuel

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 7th of May 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Robeson County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of May 2018."

Hudson, J. recused
In the MATTER OF: G.N.R.

No. COA17-914

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 3, 2018

VACATED.
1448.

#### Allen *v.*The State.

Accusation of obstructing legal process, from city court of Elberton — Judge Proffitt. August 19, 1908.

Submitted November 10,

Decided November 24, 1908.

*Samuel L. Olive,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas J. Brown, solicitor,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. Threats alone, unaccompanied by any effort or apparent intention to execute them, are not sufficient' to constitute the offense of obstructing, resisting, or opposing an officer in the execution of lawful process, under section 306 of the Penal Code. *Statham*v. *State,*41 *Ga.*507 (4) ; *Davis*v. *State,*76 *Ga.*721; 29 Cyc. 1329.

2. The verdict is without evidence to support it, and a new trial should have been granted. *Judgment reversed.*
#### James GOONAN, Appellant, v. Karen HENSLEY f/k/a Karen Goonan, Appellee.

No. 5D02-3651.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 15, 2003.

James J. Goonan, Clermont, Pro Se.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James Goonan, appeals a final judgment and order rendered by the trial court concerning his supplemental petition for modification, motion for contempt and objection to order concerning a modification of child support, as well as his former wife’s motion for contempt or to enforce final judgment. The record before this court contains no transcript of the proceedings below. We ordered the appellant to supplement the record with either a transcript or a statement of the evidence or proceedings pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). We received only the clerk’s notes of the proceedings which reflected that there was no court reporter present, and that the evi-dentiary hearing consumed about six hours.

In the absence of a transcript, we are unable to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the trial court in *362support of its extensive factual findings. Instead, we must presume that such findings are correct. *Hirsch v. Hirsch,*642 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); *accord Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377*So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment and order.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00057

- CV

Lakota Energy Limited Partnership

v.

Merit Management Partners I, L.P.;

Merit Energy Partners III, L.P.; and

Merit Energy Company, LLC §

§

§

§ From the 271st District Court

of Wise County ( CV11

- 04

- 320)

November 17, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affi rmed.

It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal,

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3072

___________________________

James A. Widtfeldt,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue; James Daugherty,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: June 16, 2014

Filed: June 23, 2014

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Widtfeldt appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his pro se action, in

which he alleged, among other things, that defendants attempted to violate a tax court

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.
order by pursuing tax collection against him. He sought damages and injunctive

relief. Upon careful review, see Pagonis v. United States, 575 F.3d 809, 812 (8th Cir.

2009), we conclude that dismissal was proper: sovereign immunity shields defendants

from Widtfeldt’s claim for money damages, see F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 474

(1994), and his attempt to enjoin tax collection is prohibited by the Anti-Injunction

Act, see 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of THOMAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 2, 2009 |  | /s/ Diana M. Laing     
|                        |  | Diana M. Laing         
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C §
1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RANSFORD L. LEWIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 106 MAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of May, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.3

Written Statement of the Chief Operating Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, the general
partner of Regency Centers, L.P.(the Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 29, 2008                                                              
|                                                                                     
|/s/ Mary Lou Fiala                                                                   
|Mary Lou Fiala                                                                       
|Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, general partner of registrant
# Official Journal C 113/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.113.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 113 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5620 April 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.113.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 113

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5620 April 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 113/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6743 — Talanx International/Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company/HDI Poland) (1) | 1 |
| 2013/C 113/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6878 — Alior Bank/Erste Group Bank/Polbita) (1) | 1 |
| 2013/C 113/03 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2) | 2 |
| 2013/C 113/04 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 113/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6743 — Talanx International/Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company/HDI Poland) (1)

1

2013/C 113/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6878 — Alior Bank/Erste Group Bank/Polbita) (1)

1

2013/C 113/03

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2)

2

2013/C 113/04

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 113/05 | Euro exchange rates | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 113/05

Euro exchange rates

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 113/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6876 — Sumitomo Electric Industries/Anvis Group) (1) | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 113/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6876 — Sumitomo Electric Industries/Anvis Group) (1)

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

L. GAMBOA, M.D.; KIM KUMAR, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

J. CHUDY; J. LEWIN, 

Defendants.

No. 18-17430 

D.C. No. 5:17-cv-04050-LHK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Antonio Luis Williams appeals pro se from the 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-17430

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for 

summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). 

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants 

because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs resulting from the 

mass on his neck. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004)

(holding deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be 

aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health).

Contrary to Williams’s contentions, there was no basis for the district court 

to enter default against defendants Drs. Kumar and Gamboa.

We reject as meritless Williams’s contentions that the district court should 

not have dismissed defendant Dr. Chudy because Williams voluntarily dismissed 

him from the action.

To the extent the district court erred by stating in its November 26, 2018 

order that Williams did not oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 

by not explicitly ruling on Williams’s April 11, 2018 filing, these errors were 

harmless.
3 18-17430

Williams’s pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2018

Gretchen Engel, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of July 2018 by Social Scientists for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2018."
Order filed December 15, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00822-CV

____________

DOMINIQUE WESLEY, Appellant

V.

THE WALLINGFORD APARTMENTS, Appellees

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 999231

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed September 15, 2011. To date, the filing 

fee of $175.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence 

has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk of 

this court on or before December 30, 2011. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to 

timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM