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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER<F1>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         10,249
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  97,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,021
<INVENTORY>                                    19,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,969
<PP&E>                                         514,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                 293,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 630,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          146,859
<BONDS>                                        5,089
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     454,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   630,606
<SALES>                                        179,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               179,914
<CGS>                                          95,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  95,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                22,921
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9,084
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            13,837
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   13,837
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.51
<FN>
<F1>  3 ACCOUNTING PERIODS
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### JOHN ROBERT JACKSON, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7913

July 31, 1975

538 P.2d 584

*496
      *Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Michael R. Griffin,*Deputy State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Kathleen M. Wall,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In March, 1965, a jury convicted John Robert Jackson of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with the possibility of parole.

The conviction was affirmed. See Jackson v. State, 84 Nev. 203, 438 P.2d 795 (1968), which contains the factual recitations of the homicide and resolution of the errors claimed on appeal.

On June 1, 1973, Jackson filed a petition for post-conviction relief raising, for the first time, multiple issues. The district judge denied relief, concluding that the now claimed errors had been waived because Jackson had failed to show good cause for his failure to present them during trial or on his prior appeal — as required by NRS 177.375(2).

In this appeal Jackson contends the trial court erred in failing to consider and resolve the various allegations of error in his petition.

The district judge’s reliance on the waiver provision of NRS 177.375(2) was misplaced as that statute, in its present form, was not effective until July 1, 1973, a month after this action was initiated. See Stats, of Nev. 1973, ch. 349, pp. 436-439. However, even though the district judge erroneously relied on the new statute, the order denying post-conviction relief was correct. See Craig v. Warden, 87 Nev. 39, 482 P.2d 325 (1971), an analogous situation, where we declined to consider, in a post-conviction proceeding, claims not presented in an earlier appeal where there had been no reasonable excuse or explanation advanced for the prior failure to present the belated *497claims. Accord: Stocks v. Warden, 86 Nev. 758, 476 P.2d 469 (1970); Rogers v. Warden, 86 Nev. 359, 468 P.2d 993 (1970).

Affirmed.
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Rehearing No. 540 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

130802-03 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

MICHIGAN CITIZENS FOR WATER 

CONSERVATION, R. J. DOYLE, BARBARA 

DOYLE, JEFFREY R. SAPP and SHELLY M. 

SAPP, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants/

Cross-Appellees, 

v SC: 130802-3 

NESTLÉ WATERS NORTH AMERICA INC., 

Defendant-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

and 

 COA: 254202; 256153 

Mecosta CC: 01-014563-CE 

DONALD PATRICK BOLLMAN and NANCY 

GALE BOLLMAN, a/k/a PAT BOLLMAN 

ENTERPRISES, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

In this cause, a motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant rehearing. 

WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I would grant plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and reverse the holding1

 of the
 

majority of four (Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman) that 

plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a claim under the Michigan environmental 

1 Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc, 479 

Mich ___ (2007). 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2 

protection act2

 with respect to the Osprey Lake Impoundment and wetlands 112, 115, and 

301. 

Further, I would grant plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration to consider whether 

the majority of four’s holding violated plaintiffs’ right “to petition the Government for a 

redress of grievances,” a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States 

Constitution.3

 The importance of this issue stems not only from the instant case, but also 

from various other holdings by the same majority denying citizens protection of the laws 

and access to the Michigan court system, even when legal rights may have been violated. 

See Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004) (reducing no-fault insurance rights); 

Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372 (2006) (preventing trial by jury); Bierlein v 

Schneider, 478 Mich 893 (2007) (preventing an injured child from utilizing an existing 

Michigan court rule to collect a settlement); and Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn 

Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich ___ (2007) (eliminating the common-law discovery rule, thereby 

depriving a plaintiff of an opportunity to file a good-faith claim and of access to courts). 

2

 MCL 324.1701 et seq. 

3

 US Const, Am I forbids Congress, in pertinent part, from passing laws abridging “the 

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of 

grievances.” The First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth 

Amendment. Mills v Alabama, 384 US 214, 218 (1966). 

t0925 

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 28, 2007 

Clerk
# C_2008038EN.01000201.xml

| 12.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4819 — CommScope/Andrew)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 38/02)

On 3 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4819. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4819. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 

20, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00304-CR

NESSKEN MARTINEZ ALVAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2185902

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Both appellant Nessken Martinez Alvarez and his attorney have signed and 

filed a written request to withdraw his notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. 

Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court 
2 

to issue the mandate of the court immediately.

 PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Christopher, Spain, and Poissant. 

Do Not Publish – Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Interstate Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 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 Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

November 2, 2007
#### Hubert D. WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-30607.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 5, 2005.

Hubert D. Walker, Angola, LA, pro se.

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Hubert D. Walker (“Walker”), Louisiana prisoner #419324, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. Walker filed the petition to challenge his life sentence for second degree murder. Walker argues that his petition is not time-barred because he complied with all of Louisiana’s procedural requirements regarding the filing of his state habeas pleadings.

To obtain a COA, Walker must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). When a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds, “a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484.

Walker has shown that jurists of reason would debate the correctness of the district court’s determination that he failed to comply with Louisiana’s procedural requirements regarding the filing of his state habeas pleadings, specifically the filing of his writ application to the Louisiana Supreme Court. *See Villegas v. Johnson,*184 F.3d 467, 469-70 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1999); *State ex rel. Johnson v. Whitley,*648 So.2d 909 (La.1995); Louisiana Supreme Court Rule X, § 5(a); LaCode Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 13 (2002); LaRev.Stat. Ann. 1:55 (2002). Based on the materials of record, it is impossible to determine whether reasonable jurists would debate whether the claims raised by Walker in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition are valid claims of a constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a COA be GRANTED as to whether Walker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was timely filed under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. *See Houser v. Dretke,*395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir.2004). We VACATE the district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 relief and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings. *See Dickinson v. Wainwright,*626 F.2d 1184, 1186 (5th Cir. 1980).

COA GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 February 28, 2022 
 Jim
Fong 
 (Delivered via email) 
 Dear Jim: 

On behalf of CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. (CTI) Board of Directors, I am very pleased to promote you to the position of Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial
Officer reporting to Bruce Seeley, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. The effective date for this promotion will be today. 
 The Senior
Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer position is a Section 16 officer position with a bonus target that is determined by the Compensation Committee. The current annual discretionary target bonus rate is at 40%. This position is
determined to be exempt from overtime under federal and state law. The Compensation Committee has elected to increase your base salary to the annual rate of $410,000 effective today. As a reminder, salary increases for Section 16 Officers are
at the sole discretion of CTI’s Compensation Committee and may take into account various factors including but not limited to salary history, market compensation data and employee performance. 

In addition, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has granted you 210,000 stock options to purchase CTI common stock. Such options shall vest
over a period of four years from your promotion effective date (today), wherein 25% or 52,500 options will vest after each year from the effective date, thus all 210,000 options shall be exercisable after four years. The option exercise price per
share is the last quoted per share selling price for Shares on the day of the Committee meeting on September 23, 2021. 
 Please sign and date a copy
of this letter and return it to Derald Lo in HR. 
 We thank you for all the contributions you have made at CTI and we look forward to your continued
success. 
 Sincerely, 
 Adam R. Craig, MD, PhD, MBA 

President, Chief Executive Officer & Interim Chief Medical Officer 

CTI BIOPHARMA CORP (CTI) 
 Acknowledgement: 

 

									
	Signature:	 	 /s/ James K. Fong
	 	        	  	Date:	  	 March 1, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5496 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5496

 To repeal the public telecommunications facilities assistance program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2010

Mr. Wilson of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the public telecommunications facilities assistance program.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Effective December 31, 2010, subpart A of part IV of title III of 
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 390 et seq.) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. BROOKS

No. 108 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 349.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals. denied 12 July 1973.
#### Carey Christine MCALPINE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mark NANAMURI, Parole Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-15429.

D.C. No. CV-02-00664-ACK/LEK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Carey Christine McAlpine, Anchorage, AK, pro se.

Caron M. InagaM, Cindy S. Inouye, Christine E. Matkin, Esq., Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Carey Christine McAlpine appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal without prejudice, on statute of limitations grounds, of her civil rights action alleging that she was wrongfully arrested for a parole violation and re-incarcerated for a period of 28 days. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order because it was not final. *See WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (district court order dismissing claims with leave to amend is not a final appealable order).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Anthony D. AMAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deputy Superintendent Gayle HAPONIK, Deputy George Schneider, Superintendent Christopher Artuz, Sergeant Jose Maldonado, C.O. Brady, C.O. McDonnell, John Doe, Sgt., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-0185-PR.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 13, 2005.

*376Anthony D. Amaker, Comstock, N.Y. (on submission), for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.

Thomas B. Litsky, Assistant Solicitor General, for Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York (Michael S. Belohlavek, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief) (on submission), for DefendantsAppellees.

PRESENT: CALABRESI, CABRANES Circuit Judges, and HALL, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony D. Amaker (“plaintiff’ or “Amaker”), *pro se,*brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against several New York State prison officials (“defendants”). He alleged a cavalcade of civil rights and constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. The district court (Koeltl, /.) granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and, subsequently, denied Amaker’s motion to vacate that judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) and (6).

We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal, and affirm the district court decision substantially for the reasons it gave. *See Amaker v. Haponik,*No. 98 Civ. 2663, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5931, 2002 WL 523385 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2002).

We have considered all of Amaker’s claims on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Furthermore, we hereby issue notice to plaintiff that further filing of frivolous appeals in this Court may result in the imposition of leave-to-file sanctions. Such a measure is appropriately applied to those litigants who have a “clear pattern of abusing the litigation process by filing vexatious and frivolous complaints.” *In re Sassower,*20 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. Jud. Council 1994).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5569 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5569

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 2010

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 
                                 2010.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Extension Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``September 30, 2010''.
    (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and inserting 
        ``September 30, 2010''; and
            (2) by striking ``$20,775,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$20,725,000,000''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall be considered to have taken effect on May 31, 2010.

SEC. 3. BUDGET COMPLIANCE.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          713,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,113,315
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   713,395
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>