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


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Winthrop
Residential Associates I, A Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                            251,000
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    951,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        640,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      951,000
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  580,000 <F1>
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      17,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  762,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 48,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (322,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (322,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (322,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (11.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (11.17)
        

<FN>
(1) Includes gain on sale of property from Local Limited Partnership of
    $506,000.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### Joseph Bernard PONDER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-35477.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Thomas J. Hester, FPDOR—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Portland), Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

*170Ryan P. Kahn, Leonard W. Williamson, Esq., AGOR—Office of the Oregon Attorney General (Salem), Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Bernard Ponder, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the instant § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust, because the only instance in which Ponder presented the instant claim to the Oregon Supreme Court was via an improper procedural vehicle. *See Roettgen v. Copeland,*33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies when he presented claim in the state habeas petition instead of Ariz. Rule 32 post-conviction proceeding); *Peterson v. Lampert,*319 F.3d 1153, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that petitioner did not fairly present his ineffective assistance claim to the Oregon Supreme Court and therefore failed to exhaust).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
#### In the Matter of the Designation of Eugene M. Travis as a Candidate for the Republican Party Nomination for the Office of Comptroller of the State of New York. John Kissel, Appellant; Eugene M. Travis et al., Respondents.

*Matter of Travis',*184 App. Div. 505, affirmed.

(Argued September 30, 1918;

decided October 8, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered August 24, 1918, which reversed an order of Special Term sustaining objections to the petition designating Eugene M. Travis as a candidate for the Republican nomination for the office of state comptroller. The grounds of the objection to such petition were that the authority of the notaries public, commissioners of deeds and justices of the peace who acted as such officers in taking the acknowledgments and oaths of the signers of said petitions, in counties, and in cities and localities in counties other than Albany county, were not authenticated by the county clerks’ certificates of the clerks of the several counties, in the manner required by sections 310 and 312 of the Real Property Law, and that by reason of such omission the secretary of state was without authority to file such petitions in his office, which is in the Capitol in Albany county.

*Louis J. Altkrug*for appellant.

*A, S. Gilbert, Lafayette B. Gleason, Alexander Otis*and *Charles M. Travis*for Eugene M. Travis et al., respondents.

*Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-General (Robert P. Beyef*and *William J. Smith*of counsel), for Secretary of State,' respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur; His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7799
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALEXIS ANTONIO GARCIA-R IVAS, a/k/a Alex A. Garcia, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-95-101, CA-97-168-2) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 15, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexis Antonio Garcia-Rivas, Appellant Pro Se. Timika Shafeek, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the r ecommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
# C_2007062EN.01000301.xml

| 16.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4532 — Lukoil/ConocoPhillips)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 62/03)

On 21 February 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 32007M4532. 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 32007M4532. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### STATE v. RAY THOMAS HAGLER.

(Filed 19 October, 1966.)

Larceny § 3—

An indictment' charging larceny o£ goods by means of feloniously breaking and entering, charges a felony regardless of the value of the articles stolen.

Appeal by defendant from *McLean, J.,*March 7, 1966 Regular Criminal Session, MECKLENBURG Superior Court.

This criminal prosecution was based upon a bill of indictment containing two counts. The first count charged the defendant and two others with the felonious breaking and entering into the dwelling house of Fred Parker with the intent to steal, take and carry away the merchandise, chattels, money, valuable securities of the value of more than $200.00 being kept therein. The second count charged that as a result of the felonious breaking and entering the three defendants did unlawfully and feloniously steal, take and carry away one 22-caliber rifle, model 66; one 22-caliber pistol, one Swift ham, two plaid shirts (Arrow), one pair gray pants size 32-32, one green top coat, one blue top coat, size 36, one Westinghouse iron, eight children’s game sets, three sirloin steaks of the value of less than $200.00.

*361The State introduced, evidence of the felonious breaking and entering into the Parker residence, the larceny of the specified articles therefrom, their return to the owners by the officers the day following the night of breaking. One of the neighbors saw a Chevrolet truck parked at the Parker home and three persons carrying bundles of clothing hurriedly enter the truck and drive away. The defendant Hagler was the driver. The officers went to the home of one of the other defendants the next morning and found the stolen articles. The defendant Hagler was in the house asleep.

Hagler, the other defendants, and Hagler’s sister testified for the defendants. The jury returned this verdict:

“The jury herein recorded find the defendant Ray Thomas Hagler Guilty of the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony therein, and Guilty of the charge of larceny of property resulting from breaking and entering as charged in the bill of indictment.”

From a sentence of 9-10 years on each count, to run consecutively, the defendant Hagler appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., Staff Attorney for the State.*

*T. 0. Stennett for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence for the State was sufficient to go to the jury on both counts in the indictment and to sustain the verdict. The second count in the bill charged the larceny of goods of the value of less than $200.00. However, the bill charged, and the jury found the larceny resulted from the felonious breaking. Hence the larceny under such conditions is a felony regardless of the value of the articles stolen. The maximum sentence on each count is ten years. The sentences did not exceed that maximum.

No error.
EXHIBIT 23









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS









TO BAIRNCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8, File No. 33-36330) pertaining to the Bairnco Corporation 1990 Stock Incentive Plan of Bairnco Corporation and subsidiaries and (Form S-8, File No. 33-41313) pertaining to the Bairnco Corporation 401(K) Savings Plan and Trust of Bairnco Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated January 30, 2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Bairnco Corporation and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.





/s/ Ernst &Young LLP



Tampa, Florida

March 17, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70086-70087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22963]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1607-DR]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 12 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated September 24, 2005, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective October 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter 
dated October 26, 2005, the President amended the cost-sharing 
arrangements concerning Federal funds provided under the authority of 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 
U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), in a letter to R. David Paulison, 
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of 
Homeland Security, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State 
of Louisiana resulting from Hurricane Rita, beginning on September 
23, 2005, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude 
that special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted regarding 
Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford 
Act).
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of September 24, 2005, to 
authorize Federal

[[Page 70087]]

funds for debris removal and emergency protective measures 
(Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the 
Public Assistance program at 100 percent of total eligible costs, 
through and including November 26, 2005.
    Please notify Governor Blanco and the Federal Coordinating 
Officer of this amendment to my major disaster declaration.
    This cost share is effective as of the date of the President's 
major disaster declaration.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 05-22963 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Soldier Accounted For From Korean War (Martin, J.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### IN RE CITY OF WASHINGTON

No. 14 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 505.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina' Court of Appeals denied 3 October 1972.
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 95 Filed 03/27/2008 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 13, 2021

No. 04-21-00194-CR

Chance WATSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7426

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this case was originally due July 26, 2021. We granted the district 

clerk’s first two requests for an extension of time to file the record, extending the deadline until 

September 13, 2021. On September 10, 2021, the district clerk filed a third notification of late 

record, requesting an additional extension of time until September 30, 2021. After consideration, 

we GRANT the request and ORDER the district clerk to file the clerk’s record by September 

30, 2021.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Exhibit 10.33

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the
Amendment) is made this 31st day of December 2008 between BIOMET, INC., an Indiana corporation (Biomet), and Jon Serbousek (Executive). All capitalized terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement (defined below), unless otherwise defined herein.

WHEREAS, Biomet and Executive
entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of March 3, 2008 (the Employment Agreement); and

WHEREAS,
Biomet and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Biomet and Executive hereby agree as follows:

1. Section 9(e):Termination by the Company Other Than For Cause, Death or Disability, or by the Executive for Good Reason, Following a
Change of Control. Section 9(e)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete the final sentence of Section 9(e)(i) in its entirety and replace it with the following:

The total amount of the Change of Control Severance Benefit will be paid: (1) if the Change in Control constitutes a change in control event
within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(i)(5), in a lump sum as soon as administratively practicable (but in no event later than 30 days) following the Date of Termination or (2) if the Change of Control does not constitute a change
in control event within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(i)(5), in equal, ratable installments in accordance with the Companys regular payroll policies over the course of the Non-Compete Period.

2. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment
may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement on the date first set forth above.



BIOMET, INC.By:

/s/ Bradley J. TandyBradley J. TandySenior Vice President, General Counsel & SecretaryEXECUTIVE/s/ Jon SerbousekName:

Jon Serbousek