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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,693                   7,199
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,693                   7,199
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANDY SYLVIAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00055-MP -WCS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 18, Report and Recommendation, regarding the

Complaint, Doc. 1, Filed by Andy Sylvian. The Magistrate Judge has recommended the

complaint be dismissed. No party has filed an objection to the recommendation, and the time for

doing so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 18, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein. 

2. The Complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

3. The Clerk is directed to note on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY



In connection with Amendment No. 1 on Form 40-F/A to the Annual Report of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David M. Hall, 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/ David M. Hall



Name: David M. Hall

Title: Chief Executive Officer

April 28, 2005



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/A 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/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
# C_2009063EN.01001901.xml

| 18.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/19

---

Calls for proposals under the 2009 work programme ‘People’ of the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

(2009/C 63/08)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals under the 2009 work programme ‘People’ of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following calls. Calls deadline and budget are given in the call text, which is published on the CORDIS website.

‘People’ Specific Programme:

| Call Title | Call Identifier |
| --- | --- |
| Intra-European Fellowships | FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IEF |
| International Incoming Fellowships | FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IIF |
| International Outgoing Fellowships | FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IOF |

Call Title

Call Identifier

Intra-European Fellowships

FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IEF

International Incoming Fellowships

FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IIF

International Outgoing Fellowships

FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IOF

These calls for proposals relate to the 2009 work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2008) 4483 of 22 August 2008.

Information on the modalities of the calls, the work programme, and the guide for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the CORDIS website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls/

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JEFFERY LAMAR COLE, #99003097

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv176/LAC/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

SANTA ROSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT

and

LANCE RICHARD BIRD,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated November 19, 2010 (Doc. 6). 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 the

objections filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto,

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 cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as malicious.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of December, 2010. rd

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



                        Report of Independent Accountants



To the Board of Directors of
Key Bank USA, National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report of
Management on Internal Control over Securitized Receivables, that Key Bank USA,
National Association maintained effective internal control over servicing
securitized receivables of Key Consumer Acceptance Corp. as of December 31,
1997.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of internal control over servicing of securitized
receivables, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of
the internal control, and such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

Because of the inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or fraud may
occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of internal
control over servicing securitized receivables to future periods are subject to
the risk that internal control may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion, that that Key Bank USA, National
Association maintained effective internal control over servicing securitized
receivables of Key Consumer Acceptance Corp. as of December 31, 1997, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based upon criteria established in "Internal
Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.



                                             Ernst & Young LLP



March 27, 1998

                                   Page 18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA G. LESLIE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-70450 

Tax Ct. No. 27014-12 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted June 4, 2018**

Pasadena, California

Before: FISHER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District Judge.

Taxpayer Maria Leslie (“Leslie”) appeals from the tax court’s decision on 

her petition for redetermination of federal income tax deficiency for years 2007–

 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for 

the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 6 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

2009. We review the tax court’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual 

findings for clear error. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). 

As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm. 

Leslie challenges the tax court’s conclusion that certain payments she 

received from her former husband, Byron Georgiou (“Georgiou”), under their 

marital settlement agreement were alimony under Internal Revenue Code § 71(b), 

and thus income taxable to her. Instead, she argues, the payments should have 

been treated as a lump-sum payment not subject to federal income tax under 

§ 1041(a). At the same time, Leslie concedes that § 71(b) provides the applicable 

definition of alimony and that the payments in question meet the statutory 

definition of § 71(b). 

We agree: § 71(b) plainly applies to the payments at issue. The payments 

were received “under a . . . separation instrument.” § 71(b)(1)(A). The separation 

instrument designated the payments as “taxable to Ms. Leslie and deductible to Mr. 

Georgiou as spousal support.” See § 71(b)(1)(B). Leslie and Georgiou were “not 

members of the same household at the time such payment[s] [were] made.” 

§ 71(b)(1)(C). And finally, by operation of California law, the liability to make the 

payments would have ended upon Georgiou’s death. § 71(b)(1)(D); see Cal. Fam. 

Code § 4337.

When a statute has a plain meaning, it is that meaning we apply. Hughes 
3 

Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999). Courts, moreover, “do not 

resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.” Ratzlaf v. United 

States, 510 U.S. 135, 147–48 (1994). We therefore decline Leslie’s invitation to 

reject the statute’s plain meaning. 

AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

STANLEY N. TAVORN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv225-RH/GRJ

S. BEARDEN et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 7. No objections have been filed. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is

DENIED. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED

without prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on December 1, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
Case 3:09-cr-00069-LC   Document 2   Filed 07/14/10   Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

THOMAS C O’BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00076-MP-GRJ

JIMMY JONES, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Order Directing Defendants’ to File An Answer. 

(Doc. 40.) The Court previously directed Plaintiff to pay the costs of service and

directed the Defendants to advise the Court when this was accomplished. (Doc. 29.) 

Althugh Plaintiff has filed a Notice advising the Court that funds were withdrawn from

his account for this purpose (Doc. 39) the Court’s previous Order directed the

Defendants, not the Plaintiff, to advise the Court that these costs had been paid. 

Because service already has been accomplished (docs. 12, 14, 16) and a notice of

appearance filed (Doc. 18), an answer should have been forthcoming as soon as the

reimbursement was completed. Although the present motion contains a certificate of

service date of December 29, 2010, no response has been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

That Defendants shall on or before February 9, 2011, respond to Plaintiff’s

motion (Doc. 40) and advise whether service costs have been received and if so why
Page 2 of 2

an answer has not been filed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26 day of January, 2011. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00076-MP -GRJ
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                           DeGolyer and MacNaughton
                               One Energy Square
                              Dallas, Texas 75206

                                March 11, 1999



EEX Corporation 
2500 City West Boulevard
Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77042


Gentlemen:

        We hereby consent to the references to our firm and to our reserves 
estimates for the year ended December 31, 1996, as set forth in the Annual 
Report on Form 10-K (the Annual Report) of EEX Corporation for the year ended 
December 31, 1998. Our estimates of the oil, condensate, natural gas liquids, 
and natural gas reserves of certain properties owned by the Company are 
contained in our report entitled "Report as of January 1, 1997, on Reserves of 
Certain Properties owned by Enserch Exploration, Inc." References to us and to 
our estimates are included in Note 18 of the "Notes to Consolidated Financial 
Statements" in the Annual Report.  Additionally, we hereby consent to the 
incorporation by reference in the Company's Registration Statements Nos. 
333-24595 and 333-41979 on Form S-8 and No. 333-64427 on Form S-3 of such 
references made in the Annual Report.  



                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughton
                                        ------------------------------
                                        DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
#### STATE v. ELVIN GRAY SQUIRES.

(Filed 29 September, 1965.)

1. Indictment and Warrant § 4—

That some of the evidence before the grand jury was hearsay and incompetent is not ground for quashal of the indictment.

2. Witnesses § a—

The trial court’s finding that a witness was mentally competent to testify is conclusive.

Appeal by defendant from *Morris,*J.., January 18, 1965 Criminal Session, DupliN Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution upon an indictment charging that Elvin G. Squires “beginning about January 1, 1963 and continuing on occasions through April 18, 1964, . . . feloniously and incestuously did have carnal intercourse with his minor daughter (naming her).” The evidence, including the testimony of the daughter, her mother, brother, Dr. Quinn, the sheriff, and the welfare officer of Duplin County, was ample to support the charge contained in the indictment. The defendant testified in his own behalf and denied the charge. From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General; Charles D. Barham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Wilson B. Partin, Jr., Staff Attorney for the State.*

*Charles L. Abernethy, Jr.., for defendant appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Upon arraignment, counsel questioned the mental capacity of the defendant to plead to the indictment and to conduct his defense. Pursuant to court order he was committed to Dorothea Dix Hospital for observation. At the end of the examination period the authorities certified the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial.

The record discloses: “On calling the case for trial the defendant, through counsel, Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., enters a plea of not guilty *389and moves to quash the bill of indictment.” Disregarding the question whether the motion to quash was timely made (after plea) the reason assigned (hearsay testimony before the grand jury) was insufficient to invalidate the indictment. *Costello v. U. S.,*350 U.S. 359, 100 L. Ed. 397. The court, after inquiry, overruled defendant’s challenge to the competency of the prosecuting witness to testify. The court’s finding of competency was warranted by the showing made and hence is conclusive. *State v.*Levy, 200 N.C. 586, 158 S.E. 94.

The questions presented and argued here, as well as the face of the record, disclose that in the trial there was

No error.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

NETWORK TALLAHASSEE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv38-RH/WCS

EMBARQ CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER ON CLASS-CERTIFICATION DEADLINE

The parties moved to extend the deadline for a class-certification motion to

November 9, 2010, but two days after filing the extension motion, the plaintiff

filed a class-certification motion, thus apparently rendering the extension motion

moot. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

To the extent it is not moot, the motion to extend the deadline for a classcertification motion, ECF No. 80, is GRANTED, and the deadline is extended to

November 9, 2010.

SO ORDERED on October 19, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-00038-RH-WCS Document 85 Filed 10/19/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1  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 Atlantic Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.   Date:   March 7, 2011   /s/ Raffi Khorchidian---------------------------------
Raffi Khorchidian, 
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7236

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DURHAM COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; SHERIFF CLARENCE 

BIRKHEAD; MAJOR E. BAZMORE; LIEUTENANT PEELE; ARAMARK; 

MANAGER PAM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00031-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 26, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7236 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen v. Durham Cnty. Det. Facility, No. 

1:21-cv-00031-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2021). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7236 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2