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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         127,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    219,346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               410,633
<PP&E>                                       7,686,675
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,780,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,319,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,221,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,184
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,912,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,319,023
<SALES>                                      1,568,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,232,895
<CGS>                                          898,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,047,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                185,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                    50,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            135,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   135,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

NINA GIVEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv32/RS-WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16). No

objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and

incorporated in this Order.

2. The decision of the Commissioner to deny Plaintiff’s application for social

security benefits is affirmed, and this case is dismissed.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on December 3, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM JOHN GREEN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

W. Z. JENKINS II, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-55391 

D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01456-DMG-GJS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner William John Green appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, the 

order denying his motion for reconsideration, and the order denying his motion for

release pending appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(b). We have 

* 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 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-55391 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court dismissed Green’s § 2241 habeas petition and denied 

reconsideration on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over Green’s claims 

challenging his conviction and sentence, and his claims challenging the conditions 

of his confinement were not cognizable in habeas. On appeal, Green contends that 

the district court erred by concluding that it lacked habeas jurisdiction over his 

claim that the Bureau of Prisons violated his Eighth Amendment rights by its 

alleged mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic and inability to care for his 

underlying health conditions. We need not resolve this issue because Green’s 

Eighth Amendment claim is now moot. Green’s claim was premised on conditions

at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Los Angeles (“MDC LA”), where he was 

housed when he filed his petition. After Green filed his motion for

reconsideration, however, he was transferred to FCI Terminal Island, a facility that 

could better meet his medical needs. As a result, Green’s claim for habeas relief 

premised on conditions at MDC LA is now moot, see Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 

1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995), and we must dismiss the appeal insofar as it 

challenges the district court’s resolution of that claim. By this disposition, we 

express no opinion as to whether Green may file a § 2241 habeas petition seeking 

his immediate release based on conditions at FCI Terminal Island.

We further conclude that the district court properly determined that it lacked 
3 21-55391 

jurisdiction over Green’s challenges to his sentence and allegations of ineffective 

assistance of counsel because those claims did not meet the escape hatch of 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2006).

In light of our disposition of this appeal, Green’s challenge to the district 

court’s order denying his Rule 23(b) motion is moot. Green’s renewed request to 

this court for release pending appeal is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
EX-10.01




 Exhibit 10.01 

Entercom Communications Corp. 

Non-employee Director Compensation Policy 

Cash Compensation: 
 Annual
Board Retainer: $80,000 per year. 
 Committee Non-chair / Membership Fee: 

	 	•	 	 Audit Committee - $20,000 per year 



	 	•	 	 Compensation Committee - $15,000 per year; and 



	 	•	 	 Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee - $10,000 per year. 



Committee Chair / Membership Fee: 

	 	•	 	 Audit Committee Chair - $35,000 per year; 



	 	•	 	 Compensation Committee Chair - $25,000 per year; and 



	 	•	 	 Nominating/Corporate Governance Chair - $15,000 per year. 



Independent Lead Director (if applicable): $25,000 per year 

Payment: The Board Retainer, Committee Membership Fees and Committee Chair Fees shall be paid in equal quarterly installments on
May 31, August 31, November 30 and February 28 following election to the board, committee or chair position, as applicable. 

Equity Compensation: An annual grant of $120,000 in shares of restricted stock to be granted promptly following the Annual Meeting of
Shareholders in the form previously approved by the Compensation Committee and vest after one year. The number of shares will be computed based on the closing price of the Company’s stock at the end of the last trading day immediately preceding
the grant date. 
 Partial Terms. For any director elected or appointed to the Board other than by the shareholders at an annual meeting of
shareholders, the amount of cash and equity compensation shall be prorated (assuming that the next annual meeting of shareholders will occur on the anniversary of the preceding Annual Meeting of Shareholders). Similarly all compensation changes
resulting from Committee and or Chair reassignments shall be equitably prorated. 
 2020 2Q COVID 19 Addendum. As a result of the COVID-19 Crisis: (A) all cash fees earned by directors during the Second Quarter shall be reduced by 25%; and (B) the Equity Compensation grant, which would occur on May 5, 2020, will not be made and
instead will be deferred until such later date as determined by the Board.
Order entered March 12, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00335-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.P., J.P., J.P., AND G.F.P., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-556-W

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal in a child protection case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4. 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.1(b), the appellate record was due January 28, 

2013. See id. 35.1(b). The clerk’s record has been filed; the reporter’s record has not. 

Accordingly, we ORDER David Chance, Official Court Reporter, to file the record no later than 

March 22, 2013. If necessary, arrangements for a substitute reporter must be made as no 

extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances. See id. 28.4(b)(1),(2). 

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to (1) the Honorable 

William A. Mazur, Presiding Judge of the 304th Judicial District Court, and (2) David Chance, 

Official Court Reporter of the 304th Judicial District Court.

 

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
----

| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                        |   |   |                                                                                                                          |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Marie C Moffett                                                                                    |   |   | /s/      Rodger D  Spainhower                                                                                                 |
| Name: Marie      C MoffettTitle:      President and Chief Operating OfficerDate:      January 14, 2009 |   |   | Name:      Rodger D SpainhowerTitle:      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate: January 14,      2009 |

----
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TERRANCE ALLEN BARGNARE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv44/MCR/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 29, 2010 (Doc. 13). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Liberty Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Hayne Hipp          |  | /s/ Howard L. Schrott  
|Hayne Hipp              |  | Howard L. Schrott      
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
|August 6, 2003          |  | August 6, 2003         

23
EXHIBIT 23.1

                               KYLE L. TINGLE, CPA








To Whom It May Concern:                                       August 20, 2004



The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, Certified Public Accountant, hereby consents to the
inclusion of his report of July 24, 2004, accompanying the audited financial
statements of Hawksdale Financial Visions, Inc., as at December 31, 2002 and as
at December 31, 2003 in the Form 10KSB.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Kyle L. Tingle


Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC










P.O. Box 50141, Henderson, Nevada 89016, Phone: (702) 434-8452, Fax: (702)
436-4218, e-mail: Ktingle@worldnet.att.net
#### COMR. OF INSURANCE v. RATE BUREAU

No. 74.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 191.

Motion of defendants to dismiss appeal of plaintiff for failure to perfect denied 5 March 1980.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6541

RICKEY R. LLOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL WALKER; KEVIN HARRELLSON; ROBERT

WHITE; JIMMY EVANS; SERGEANT DICKERSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-202-5-F)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rickey R. Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Lloyd v. Walker, No. CA-96-202-5-F (E.D.N.C. Mar.

20, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Frank George et al., Appellants, *v.*City of Schenectady, Respondent.

*George*v. *City of Schenectady,*171 App. Div. 966, affirmed.

(Argued October 17, 1918;

decided November 1, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment entered December 14, 1Ó15, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for alleged extra work in the performance of a contract for the laying of certain sewers. The plaintiffs claimed that they found a certain conglomerate or hard-pan in performing the work under the contract, that the same was called to the attention of the officers of the defendant in charge of the work, that none of this substance or hardpan was mentioned as a part of the excavation under the specifications, instructions to bidders or contract, and that it was stipulated that said excavation of said conglomerate or hardpan should be paid for additional to that provided in the contract for earth excavation. The defense was that the hardpan was properly classified and paid for as earth under the contract.

*Nathaniel W. Norton*for appellants.

*John D. Miller*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ. Absent: Andrews, J.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY



In connection with the annual report of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, K. Thomas Bailey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ K. Thomas Bailey



Name: K. Thomas Bailey

Title: Chief Financial Officer

March 30, 2007





A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Form 40-F to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 40-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
EXHIBIT 31.2



I, Becky Corigliano, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.

Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's most recent fiscal quarter (Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

1.

Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys auditors and the audit committee of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's board of directors:

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Little Squaw Gold Mining Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in Little Squaw Gold Mining Companys internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 13, 2005





By   /s/ Becky Corigliano



Becky Corigliano, Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TIMOTHY WALDEN, KURT VAN BRYANT,

and ALEXANDER WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv103/LAC/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA CORP.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated August 18, 2010 (Doc. 32). Plaintiffs have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. Plaintiffs Kurt Van Bryant and Alexander Williams are DISMISSED as Plaintiffs from

this action. 

3. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further review of Plaintiff

Timothy Walden’s claims.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21 day of September, 2010. st

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2078

_____________________________ S OLOMON H ALL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

. September 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and W OLF and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Lynne Long
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin Louis Hoffman
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.