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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 01,
1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          97,682
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,624,961<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,263,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,986,027
<PP&E>                                       5,129,023<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,115,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,484,034
<BONDS>                                      5,076,367
<COMMON>                                       196,356
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,358,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,115,050
<SALES>                                     10,107,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,433
<CGS>                                        9,172,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,172,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,216,786
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             470,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (750,484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              4,618,842
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,868,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.97
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS NET AMOUNT
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 23 , 2016.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 00741

- CV

IN RE PRAC

- II, LLC AND STAR REA LTY, INC. , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 74237



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 20, 2016, relator s PRAC

- II, LLC and Star Realty, Inc. filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this court to compel the Honorable Robert Schaffer, presiding judge of the 152nd District Court of Harris County
, to vacate his (1) Septembe r 2
, 2016 order denying relators’2

motion to quash depositions, for protecti ve order, and for case management order; and (2) September 6, 2016 order granting, in part, real parties in interest’s motion to compel.
Relators have not shown that they are enti tled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny
relators’ emergency motion to stay discovery order s

.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51094

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO ESPINOZA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-01-CR-289-ALL-FB 

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

June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Espinoza-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally

reenter the United States after deportation in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid

because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Espinoza-Martinez complains

that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an

aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the sentencing
No. 01-51094 

-2-

provision violates the Due Process Clause. Alternatively,

Espinoza-Martinez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the

aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Espinoza-Martinez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2133 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2133

          To temporarily suspend the duty on Solvent Blue 124.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2000

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To temporarily suspend the duty on Solvent Blue 124.

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

SECTION 1. SOLVENT BLUE 124.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
      

``    9902.32.73    Solvent Blue 124  Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     (CAS No. 29243-                                                         31/2004          ''
                     26-3) (provided                                                                           .
                     for in
                     subheading
                     3204.19.20)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 238

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the grade provided

for the heads of the nurse corps of the Armed Forces.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the

grade provided for the heads of the nurse corps of the

Armed Forces.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED GRADE FOR HEADS OF NURSE

4 CORPS.

5 (a) ARMY.—Section 3069(b) of title 10, United

6 States Code, is amended by striking out ‘‘brigadier gen7 eral’’ in the second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof

8 ‘‘major general’’.

9 (b) NAVY.—The first sentence of section 5150(c) of

10 such title is amended—
2

•S 238 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘rear admiral (upper half) in

2 the case of an officer in the Nurse Corps or’’ after

3 ‘‘for promotion to the grade of’’; and

4 (2) by inserting ‘‘in the case of an officer in the

5 Medical Service Corps’’ after ‘‘rear admiral (lower

6 half)’’.

7 (c) AIR FORCE.—Section 8069(b) of such title is

8 amended by striking out ‘‘brigadier general’’ in the second

9 sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘major general’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief executive officer of MacroChem Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)   the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30,
     2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form 10-Q")
     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 Company's Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

                                    /s/  Robert J. DeLuccia
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Robert J. DeLuccia
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  April 11, 2007



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to MacroChem Corporation and will be retained by MacroChem Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.






                                       35
<PAGE>
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42720

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TAMMY LYNN MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 565

Filed: July 27, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Feming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Tammy Lynn Moore pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. Idaho Code § 37-

2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Moore to a unified term of five years with two years 

determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district 

court relinquished jurisdiction and executed the original sentence. Moore filed an Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Moore

appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying her Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 
2

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Moore’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Moore’s 

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
              2002

I, Eric Fletcher, Chief Financial Officer of Hubei Pharmaceutical Group Ltd.
(the "Company"), certify that:

1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended January
31st, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17th,
2004 (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/ E. H. (Eric) FLETCHER
Chief Financial Officer
July 12th, 2004


<PAGE>
Exhibit 11








ALFA CORPORATION


STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


(Unaudited)





The following computations set
forth the calculation of basic and diluted common share and common share equivalents for the three months ended ended March 31, 2002 and 2001:


Three Months Ended March 31,2002

2001Net income

$
18,468,147

$
14,333,676Weighted average number of common shares outstanding


39,220,472


39,153,707Net income per common shareBasic

$
0.47

$
0.37Three Months Ended March 31,2002

2001Net income

$
18,468,147

$
14,333,676Weighted average number of common shares outstanding


39,220,472


39,153,707Common share equivalents resulting from:Dilutive stock options


400,558


269,706Adjusted weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares outstanding


39,621,030


39,423,413Net income per common shareDiluted

$
0.47

$
0.36
First Franklin Corporation
                            401 East Court Street
        P.O. Box 85350 / Cincinnati, Ohio 45201-5350 / (513) 721-1031




October 11, 1996


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


CONTACT:  Thomas H. Siemers
          President and CEO
          513-721-0808




Excluding  the  one  time  special  assessment  to  recapitalize  the  Savings
Association Insurance Fund (SAIF), First Franklin  Corporation,  the parent of
Franklin Savings and Loan Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio announced today earnings
of $349,000  ($.29 per share) for the third quarter of 1996 and $984,000 ($.81
per share) for the first nine months of this year.  This  compares to earnings
of $308,000  ($.25 per share) for the third quarter of 1995 and $927,000 ($.75
per share) for the nine months ended September 30, 1995.

The one time SAIF special  assessment  of  $1,150,000  ($759,000  after taxes)
resulted in a loss of $410,000 ($.34 per share) for the third quarter 1996 and
a $225,000  ($.18 per share)  profit for the nine months ended  September  30,
1996.

First Franklin conducts its business through its subsidiary  Franklin Savings,
with seven full service offices located in Hamilton County, Ohio.
#### William Leavitt, Respondent, v. Rudolph Lichtenstein, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.
# Thomas H. Kuchel: A Featured Biography

**

----

California Republican Thomas H. Kuchel often played a key role in enacting legislation with far-reaching implications. Appointed to the Senate in 1953, Kuchel won a special election in 1954 and served 16 years. In 1959 he became Republican whip. The liberal Kuchel supported Medicare, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Interstate Highway Act, and was instrumental in establishing the Redwood National Park. As Republican whip, he served as co-floor manager for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, working alongside Democratic whip Hubert Humphrey to enact that landmark bill. As the conservative movement grew in the 1960s, Kuchel became distanced from the Republican Party. He was defeated in the 1968 Republican primary by conservative educator Max Rafferty, who lost the election to Democrat Alan Cranston. “Some of the votes I have cast I know have been very costly to me politically,” Kuchel said in his 1968 farewell address to the Senate. “I think it is . . . vital that the Senate of the United States lead public opinion instead of following it.”

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
APPENDIX A: ACTIONS OF THE

MAY 1, 2016, SPECIAL TELEPHONIC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS

VOTED that the Board of Regents authorizes the Secretary to finalize and execute a term sheet 

with the Victoria & Albert Museum to establish a long-term collaborative relationship between 

the two institutions. The term sheet, which is hereby approved by the Board of Regents, will 

serve as the basis for a more detailed and binding agreement to be presented to the Board for its 

review and approval prior to execution. The term sheet will be considered final after execution 

by both parties and approval by the Board of Trustees of the Victoria & Albert Museum. 

[2016.05.01]

VOTED that the Board of Regents approves management’s recommendation with respect to 

exercise of the put option in the Smithsonian Channel. [2016.05.02]
EX-10.52






Exhibit 10.52




January 28, 2008




Joel M. Campbell

13000 Deerfield Parkway

Building 200

Alpharetta, Georgia 30004




     Re: Letter Agreement



Dear Joel:




     This is to advise you that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Exide
Technologies (the “Company”) has agreed amend the following agreements to accelerate the vesting of
all of such awards that remain unvested as of January 30, 2009: Stock Option Awards and Restricted
Share Awards granted on September 21, 2006, October 20, 2006 and May 15, 2008 and the Restricted
Stock Unit Award granted on March 22, 2007.. The Committee also agreed to amend your Stock Option
Awards to extend the exercise period for your Vested Options from ninety (90) days to one (1) year
after your January 31, 2009 retirement. In exchange for the vesting accelerations and extension of
these exercise periods, you agree to provide the Company with up to fifty (50) hours of consulting
services for the period February 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 without remuneration therefor. The
Company will reimburse you for any reasonable travel or other expenses incurred in providing such
consulting services; provided that you are able to produce reasonable documentation evidencing such
expenses.



Sincerely,




Gordon A. Ulsh

President & CEO




By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge and agree to the terms of this agreement




/s/ Joel M. Campbell 

Joel M. Campbell.
v150341_10-719 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.71.5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0632

IN THE MATTER OF:

M.D.F. and C.R.F.,

Youths in Need of Care.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record, 

and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant Father in this matter shall file 

a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The

response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, 

the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender’s Office.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice of this 

Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Appellant Father at his last known 

address.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 27 2022

06/27/2022
#### Sarah Hardy, Appellant, v. The Town of Paris, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.
Exhibit 99.2 (a)
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
        Center Tower
        650 Town Center Drive
        Costa Mesa, CA  92626




                 INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

                                
A.   The Board of Directors
Option One Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion about Option One Mortgage
Corporation's (the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing
standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
(USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1996.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those
minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about
the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and
performing such other procedures, as we considered necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not
provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with
the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Option One Mortgage
Corporation complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing
standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 1996 is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


\s\ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


February 18, 1997
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PAYRANGE INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

KIOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, TECHTREX,

INC.,

Defendants

- Appellants

______________________

2023

- 2425

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida in No. 1:20

- cv

- 20970

- LFL,

Judge Lauren F. Louis.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

KioSoft Technologies, LLC and TechTrex, Inc. move unopposed to voluntarily dismiss this appeal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

.

The court generally does not specify whether a dismissal of an appeal is with prejudice. Case: 23-2425 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2024PAYRANGE INC

. v. KIOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES

, LLC 2

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The appeal is reactivated.

(2) The motion is granted to the extent that t he appeal

is dismissed.

( 3 ) Each side shall bear its own costs.

February 6 , 2024

Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 6, 2024 Case: 23-2425 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2024