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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                           2,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                     19,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,896
<PP&E>                                           3,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,598)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,221
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           156
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,213
<SALES>                                         46,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,026
<CGS>                                           36,254
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                       202
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,947
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-31121

Summary Calendar

ANITA WOODS, Administrator, on behalf of

Edwin Woods, on behalf of Edwin Woods Estate,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1146-A)

April 5, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On July 4, 1994, Edwin Woods, the husband of plaintiff, Anita

Woods, drowned at Valentine Lake in the Kisatchie National Forest

located in Rapides Parish, Louisiana. Plaintiff brought suit

against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA),

28 U.S.C. § 1346, §§ 2671-2680, alleging negligence on the part of

the United States in the maintenance of the swimming area at
2

Valentine Lake. The United States moved to dismiss the complaint

under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b) or, in the alternative, for summary

judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 56, on the grounds that (i) if a

private person had been the owner of Valentine Lake, such person

would have been released from liability under Louisiana law by the

Recreational Use Statute, 9 LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 2795 (West 1991),

and therefore the United States could not be liable under the FTCA;

and (ii) the United States was exempted from liability under the

discretionary function exception of the FTCA itself. The district

court granted the motion to dismiss and plaintiff appealed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons set forth

by the district court in its ruling filed under date of October 6,

1995, we affirm the final judgment entered of even date therewith.

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ISRAEL WASHINGTON, AKA Puck, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10017 

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00206-MCE-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Israel Washington appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion 

for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United

States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

* 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

NOV 18 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-10017 

Washington contends that the district court erred by relying on U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13 as an applicable policy statement in contravention of our holding in

United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). Though the record 

supports this claim, any error was harmless because the court concluded that—

regardless of whether Washington had demonstrated extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for release—it would deny Washington’s motion under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284 (a district court may deny compassionate 

release based on the § 3553(a) factors alone). 

Washington argues that the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis is insufficient 

to support the denial of relief because it was “cursory” and did not reflect that the 

court actually weighed the sentencing factors. However, the district court 

explained that it agreed with the government’s § 3553(a) analysis, and the record

as a whole makes clear why the court believed the § 3553(a) factors did not 

support relief. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en 

banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Washington’s 

motion. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) 

(district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or 

not supported by the record).

AFFIRMED.
Case 1:06-cv-15073-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15073-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. STEBBINS

No. 176 PC.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 268.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
EXHIBIT 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











The Board of Directors




Cytori Therapeutics, Inc.:




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-82074 and 333-122691) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-159912, 333-140875, 333-157023, 333-153233, 333-134129, 333-157023, and 333-169822) on Form S-3 of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. of our reports dated March 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, the accompanying schedule of valuation and qualifying accounts, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010, and to the reference to our firm in Item 6, Selected Financial Data, which reports and reference to our firm appears in the December 31, 2010, annual report on Form 10-K of Cytori Therapeutics, Inc.




/s/ KPMG LLP







San Diego, California






March 11, 2011
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ JON T. HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES , Defendant

- Appell ee.

__________________________ 2013

- 5106

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 11

- CV

- 0904, Judge Nancy B. Firestone

.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R The United States moves for a stay of the dea d line to file its brief and the bri efing schedule until the end of the lapse in appropriations to the Department of Ju s tice , and for an extension of time, until November 4, 2013, to file its response brief. Upon consideration thereof , Case: 13-5106 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 10/18/2013HOFFMAN V
. US 2

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted to the extent that the United States’ brief is due n o later than November 4, 2013

. F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk s27 Case: 13-5106 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 10/18/2013
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 120-3 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 120-3 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 120-3 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3
#### VILLAGE, INC. v. FINANCIAL CORP.

No. 118 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 403.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1976.
**Exhibit      4.1**

**FIRST      AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT**

**KEYSTONE      CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC., **
**THE      COUNTY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS **

**1.**
**Definitions.**
** **

**2.**
**Amendment.      **

**3.**
**Conditions      to Effectiveness. **

**4**
**Representation      and Warranties. **

----

**5**
**Miscellaneous.**

----

----

**KEYSTONE      CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC., **

** **

**THE      COUNTY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS**

----
exv10w17






Exhibit 10.17




Fiscal Year 2009 Key Management Bonus Program



The Compensation Committee (“Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors (“Board”) approved
a cash bonus plan for fiscal year 2009 (the “2009 Key Management Bonus Program”) pursuant to which
certain key management personnel of the Company will participate, including Sydney Franchuk, who is
a named executive officer of the Company. The 2009 Key Management Bonus Program sets forth target
bonus amounts as a percentage of base compensation, which percentage is subject to increase based
upon the achievement of certain earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
(“EBITDA”) goals of the overall company and of the performance of the business unit in which each
participant operates. The target bonus award and maximum bonus award for Mr. Franchuk pursuant
to the 2009 Key Management Bonus Program is 60% and 120%, respectively.




     The Compensation Committee and/or the Board will determine the EBITDA operating targets and
methodology on which the bonuses are paid pursuant to the 2009 Key Management Bonus Program based
upon methods used historically by the Company. The Compensation Committee and/or the Board retain
the right to amend, alter or terminate the 2009 Key Management Bonus Program at any time. The
bonuses under the 2009 Key Management Bonus Program will be calculated and paid after finalizing
the Company’s audited annual financial results for fiscal year 2009. Each employee must be
employed in good standing on date of payment in order to receive payment under the arrangement.
Case 7:07-cv-03510-SCR Document 4 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
Creo Parametric INTERFACE EXPORT LOG FILE 

DWG output for Drawing JUP-A-001-R1.



Process began at: Tue Apr 17 13:28:05 2018

Process finished at: Tue Apr 17 13:28:05 2018

Total process time: 00:00:00.

DXF/DWG export configuration options chosen:

DWG_EXPORT_FORMAT                 2007
DXF_OUT_DRAWING_SCALE             NO
DXF_OUT_SCALE_VIEWS               NO
DXF_OUT_SEP_DIM_W_BREAKS          NO
INTF2D_OUT_STROKE_TEXT            NONE
INTF2D_OUT_ENHANCED_ENTS          SPLINE_AND_HATCH
INTF_OUT_LAYER                    NONE
INTF2D_OUT_ACAD_MTEXT             YES
INTF2D_OUT_ACAD_UNICODE           NO
INTF2D_OUT_ACAD_TEXT_ALIGN        AS_IS
INTF2D_OUT_PNT_ENT                NO
INTF2D_OUT_OPEN_LOG_WINDOW        NO



Output file name                  jup-a-001-r1.dwg
Drawing units                     INCH
Sheet width                       11.000000
Sheet height                      8.500000




ENTITIES:

name                             number
____                             ______

ACAD_TABLE                       1
BLOCK                            12
CIRCLE                           8
ENDBLK                           12
IMAGE                            1
INSERT                           8
LEADER                           8
LINE                             37
MTEXT                            88

TOTAL        175




LAYERS:

name                             number
____                             ______

0                                155
01_ALL_DTM_PLN                   0
01__ASM_ALL_DTM_PLN              0
01__ASM_DEF_DTM_PLN              0
01___PRT_ALL_DTM_PLN             0
01___PRT_DEF_DTM_PLN             0
02_ALL_AXES                      0
02__ASM_ALL_AXES                 0
02___PRT_ALL_AXES                0
03_ALL_CURVES                    0
03__ASM_ALL_CURVES               0
03___PRT_ALL_CURVES              0
04_ALL_DTM_PNT                   0
04__ASM_ALL_DTM_PNT              0
04___PRT_ALL_DTM_PNT             0
05_ALL_DTM_CSYS                  0
05__ASM_ALL_DTM_CSYS             0
05__ASM_DEF_DTM_CSYS             0
05___PRT_ALL_DTM_CSYS            0
05___PRT_DEF_DTM_CSYS            0
06_ALL_SURFS                     0
06__ASM_ALL_SURFS                0
06___PRT_ALL_SURFS               0
07__ASM_ALL_SKELETONS            0
3_ALL_SYMBOLS                    0
BEZUGSACHSEN                     0
DEFAULT_1                        0
DEFAULT_2                        0
DEFAULT_3                        0
INTFCLR_1                        0



BLOCKS:

name                             number
____                             ______

*T1                              82
BALLOON_BL0                      3
BALLOON_BL1                      3
BALLOON_BL2                      3
BALLOON_BL3                      3
BALLOON_BL4                      3
BALLOON_BL5                      3
BALLOON_BL6                      3
BALLOON_BL7                      3
_CLOSED                          5
GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation
550 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel. 415-835-9200
Fax: 415-391-2949


                          DLJ Commercial Mortgage Corp.
                                 Series 1999-CG3
                        Annual Statement as to Compliance
                For Period of October 1 through December 31, 1999


Pursuant to section 3.13 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, I attest that:


(i.)  A review of the activities of GMAC Commercial Mortgage as Special Servicer
      during the period,  and of its performance under this Agreement,  has been
      made under my supervision.

(ii)  To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on  such  review,  GMAC  Commercial
      Mortgage as Special  Servicer,  has fulfilled all of its obligations under
      this Agreement in all material  respects  throughout the period.  However,
      during the period of October 1 through  December 31, 1999, GMAC Commercial
      Mortgage  as Special  Servicer  did not  service  any  Specially  Serviced
      Mortgaged Loans.

(ii)  GMAC  Commercial  Mortgage  as Special  Servicer  has  received  no notice
      regarding qualifications,  or challenging the status, of any REMIC Pool as
      a REMIC, or eitherGrantor  Trust Pool as a Grantor Trust from the Internal
      Revenue Service or any other governmental agency or body.



BY: Michele Heisler                          Date:  3/8/00
    Vice President, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00122

- CV

Heriberto Martinez Gonzalez

v.

EC Lewisville, LLC, d/b/a Elite Care Emergency Center; Greater Houston Emergency Physicians, PLLC, d/b/a Elite Care Emergency Center; and Dr. Harvey Castro §

§

§

§ Fro m the 158th District Court

of Denton County (15

- 04212

- 158)

March 8, 2018

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

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

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the

trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court f or further

proceedin gs consistent with this opinion

.

It is further ordered that appellees EC Lewisville, LLC, d/b/a Elite Care

Emergency Center; Greater Houston E mergency Physicians, PLLC, d/b/a Elite

care Emergency Center/ and Dr. Harvey Castro shall pay all of the costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

___________________ Justice Sue Walker
#### STATE v. NICKERSON

No. 99 PC.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 125.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 February 1972.
#### BENTON v. DANIEL CONSTRUCTION

No. 139P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 256.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLES SHIELDS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 371 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-51018

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL DE JESUS HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Manuel

Jesus Hernandez-Hernandez, also known as Rodolfo Loera, also known as

Manuel de Jesus Hernandez-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-1981-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel De Jesus Hernandez-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He

contends that the sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), overstates the seriousness of his offense, results in

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 15, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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

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

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-51018 Document: 00511571689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2011
No. 10-51018

unjust double counting, and fails to take into account his personal

characteristics, as well as his benign motive for reentry. 

Under the ordinary standard of review, we afford a sentence within a

properly calculated guidelines range a presumption of reasonableness. However,

because Hernandez-Hernandez failed to object to the reasonableness of the

sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To succeed under this standard, 

Hernandez-Hernandez must show an error that is clear or obvious and that

affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429

(2009). 

Hernandez-Hernandez has not shown that the district court plainly erred

in imposing his 60-month sentence. This court has previously rejected the

argument that a sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is unreasonable because

it resulted from unjust double counting. United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528,

529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the district court

considered Hernandez-Hernandez’s arguments for a lesser sentence, including

his personal history, characteristics, and motive. After weighing those factors,

the district court concluded that the Guidelines provided the appropriate

sentencing range. The district court’s decision to sentence within the Guidelines

is entitled to deference. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337,

339 (5th Cir. 2008). Hernandez-Hernandez’s disagreement with the sentence

does not suffice even to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches

to a sentence within the advisory guidelines range. Thus, he has shown no

reversible plain error. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 10-51018 Document: 00511571689 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2011
Case 1:06-cv-14976-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
TY BAILEY

214.954.2239

tbailey@trtlaw.com

 January 31, 2018

Via E-File 

Ms. Lisa Matz

Clerk of the Court 

Fifth Court of Appeals 

George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building

600 Commerce Street, 

Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75202-4658

 

Re: No. 05-16-00306-CV

 Drake v. Walker 

Our File No. 1022/13734

 

Dear Ms. Matz: 

Please consider this my Vacation Letter with regard to the above-referenced matter. Please 

do not schedule any hearings, trials, or other matters related to this litigation during these dates: 

1. March 12-19; and 

2. July 23-31. 

As always, thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely,

/s/Ty Bailey

Ty Bailey

TB:acm

c: Mr. Eric Drake – P.O. Box 833688, Richardson, Texas 75083 

ACCEPTED

05-16-00306-cv

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

1/31/2018 10:19 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/31/2018 10:19:45 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
Figueira Den. Tab

105

105

To Micah Schaffer micah@youtube.com

From Steve Chen csteve@youtube.com

Cc Kevin Donahue kevin@youtube.com heather gillette cheather@youtube.com

Bce

Received Date 2006-05-15 015959 CST

Subject Re weezer song in featured video

think this is qualified as fair use in this case no

-s

On May 14. 2006 at 547 PM Micah Schaffer wrote

Hey guys Weezer is on our list of content that we pro-actively

scan for as per the RIAA We should probably de-feature this

http//www.youtube.eomtwatchvlU6sdCeYl Q8 even though its cover

band it still needs to becleared...

Itll probably wind up Copyright Reject Strike next time we scan

for Weezer.

From info88sUde.com Sun May 142028502005

xHI6IT NO.

DATE

%ELLYG8R55

Highly confidential G00001-00839895
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200218 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Hollywood Casino Shreveport and ShreveportCapital Corporation (collectively, the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John C. Hull, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of HCS I, Inc., Managing General Partner of Hollywood CasinoShreveport, Shreveport Capital Corporation and HWCC-Louisiana, Inc., certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section1350 that, to my knowledge:

###### ** **

###### **1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and**

###### ** **

###### **2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.**

 
| ** **            | **Hollywood Casino Shreveport**                  |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                  | **By:  HCS I, Inc., its Managing Partner;** |
|                  | **Shreveport Capital Corporation; and**          |
|                  | **HWCC-Louisiana, Inc.**                         |
|                  |                                             |
| Date:  March 29, 2005 | By:   /s/                                   | John  C. Hull |
|                  |                                             | John  C. Hull |
|                  |                                             | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----