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>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          41,559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                       112
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,816
<PP&E>                                           3,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,599
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,778
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,729
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,796
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,843
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,953
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,953
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        


</TABLE>
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40896 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Fredy Molina**

**- Jimenez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:20

- CR

- 1454

- 1

Before **Jolly, Willett,**  and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fredy Molina

Jimenez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Molina

- Jimenez has filed a response. We have

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 29, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40896 Document: 00516376513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2022No. 21

- 40896

2 reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Molina

- Jimenez ’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appea l presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R**

**.** 42. 2. Molina

- Jimenez’s motion fo r the appointment of new counsel is **DENIED**

. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998). Case: 21-40896 Document: 00516376513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2022
J-S29019-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

CHARLES JACOB BERGER 

 Appellant No. 1173 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 7, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000898-2008 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.: FILED MAY 19, 2016

Appellant’s counsel, James Eugene DePasquale, Esquire, has filed a 

brief in this matter in which he concedes that Appellant cannot satisfactorily 

establish his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Attorney 

DePasquale is currently in the rather odd position of arguing against his 

client’s interests. This cannot stand. 

Attorney DePasquale has not filed an “application for leave to withdraw 

as counsel” pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 

927 (1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 

1988). In Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607, 615 (Pa. Super. 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 
J-S29019-16 

- 2 - 

2006), this Court clarified “the conditions precedent to an order of court 

which terminates the representation of PCRA counsel[:]” 

1) As part of an application to withdraw as counsel, PCRA 

counsel must attach to the application a “no-merit” letter, 

2) PCRA counsel must, in the “no-merit” letter, list each claim 

the petitioner wishes to have reviewed, and detail the nature 

and extent of counsel’s review of the merits of each of those 

claims, 

3) PCRA counsel must set forth in the “no-merit” letter an 

explanation of why the petitioner’s issues are meritless, 

4) PCRA counsel must contemporaneously forward to the 

petitioner a copy of the application to withdraw, which must 

include (i) a copy of both the “no-merit” letter, and (ii) a 

statement advising the PCRA petitioner that, in the event the 

trial court grants the application of counsel to withdraw, the 

petitioner has the right to proceed pro se, or with the assistance 

of privately retained counsel; 

5) the court must conduct its own independent review of the 

record in the light of the PCRA petition and the issues set forth 

therein, as well as of the contents of the petition of PCRA 

counsel to withdraw; and 

6) the court must agree with counsel that the petition is 

meritless. 

 If counsel wishes to file an application for leave to withdraw as 

counsel, we advise counsel to file a no-merit letter which fully presents each 

claim Berger wishes to pursue on appeal, including the appropriate 

standards of review and legal authority in support of counsel’s contention 

that these claims are without merit within 30 days; or, in the alternative, 

counsel may file a proper brief on the merits. The Commonwealth shall 
J-S29019-16 

- 3 - 

thereafter have thirty days following the filing of Appellant’s brief in which to 

file its response. 

Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.
Opinion filed March 14 , 201 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ _ _______



### No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 059

- C R

____ _ ______



### LINDSEY WAYNE TRUEBLOOD

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Ta ylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 25033A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Lindsey Wayne Trueblood , Appellant, filed a pro se notice of appeal in this

case. After the clerk of this court notified Appellant that the trial court’s

certification reflected that Appellant had no right of appeal

, see T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2) , ( d), Appellant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the appeal . In

the motion, Appellant states , “I do not wish to prosecute an appeal of this case. I

am requesting that t his appeal be dismiss ed

. ” T he motion is signed by Appellant

.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.2

.2 The motion is granted

, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

March 14, 2014

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J., and Bailey, J.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2080

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4119 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4119

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                                 An Act

 
         To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``RECA Extension Act of 2022''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.
    (a) In General.--Section 3(d) of the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act (Public Law 101-426; 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
        (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting ``The Fund 
    shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after the date of 
    enactment of the RECA Extension Act of 2022.''; and
        (2) by striking ``22-year period'' and inserting ``2-year 
    period''.
    (b) Limitation on Claims.--Section 8(a) of the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act (Public Law 101-426; 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended 
by striking ``within 22 years after the date of the enactment of the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000'' and inserting 
``not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the RECA 
Extension Act of 2022''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2
**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 Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ending October 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Ullrich E. Porzig, Senior Vice President — Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: June 7, 2005       /s/ Ullrich E. Porzig   Ullrich E. Porzig   Senior Vice President,   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-692]


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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

University of California, Notice of Decision on Application for 
Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 94-125. Applicant: University of California, San 
Diego, CA 92121. Instrument: Seasor System. Manufacturer: Chelsea 
Instruments Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 59 FR 
59212, November 16, 1994.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides an instrument 
platform that can be towed to depths of 400 m at speeds to 10 knots 
with a dive/climb rate to 2.5 m/second. A university research 
department advised December 14, 1994 that (1) these capabilities are 
pertinent to the applicant's intended purpose and (2) it knows of no 
domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the 
foreign instrument for the applicant's intended use.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.


Pamela Woods,
Acting Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 95-692 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-F
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM 39304 (f rev)

________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Homaira KHALJI Captai n (O

- 3 ) , U .S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Upon further review
Decided 29 April 201 9

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Joseph S

. Imburgia. Approved sentence : No punishment . Sentence adjudged 4 April 2017 by GCM convened at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas

. For Appellant: Major Mark J. Schwartz , USAF. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel G. Matt Osborn, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne , Esquire

. Before JOHNSON
, DENNIS , and LEWIS
, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________ PER CURIAM : Appellant was originally convicted, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of drunk on duty and one specification of wrongful use of cocaine in violation of Articles 112 and 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 912, 912a. The ad judged and approved sentence consisted solely of a dismissal.United States v. Khalji , No. ACM 39304 (f rev)

2 In United States v. Khalji , No. ACM 39304, 2019 CCA LEXIS 38 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 31 Jan. 201 9 ) (unpub. op.) , this court set aside and dismissed with prejudice Appellant’s convic tion for wrongf ul use of cocaine

. W e also set aside the sentence but authorized a rehearing

. The case was returned to the convening authority for action consistent with our opinion. On 27 March 2019, the convening authority once again approved Appellant’s conviction for drunk o n duty but, having found a rehearing on the sentence impracticable , approved a sentence of no punishment in accordance with Rule for Courts

- Martial 1107(e)(2)(C)(iii). Upon further review, the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), U CMJ , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c) (2016)

. Accordingly, the approved finding and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3276

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7513
JHAN P. GIBBS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DONALD F. BAUKNECHT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-00735-GRA) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jhan P. Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jhan P. Gibbs, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gibbs v. Bauknecht , No. 6:07-cv-00735-GRA (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2007). 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5827]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration


Notice of Approval of Applicant as Trustee

    Notice is hereby given that LaSalle National Bank, National 
Association, with offices at 120 South LaSalle, Street, Chicago, 
Illinois 60603, has been approved as Trustee pursuant to Public Law 
100-710 and 46 CFR Part 221.

    Dated: March 6, 1995.

    By Order of the Maritime Administrator
Joel C. Richard,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5827 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.22

                                  BIOSHIELD (TM)
                          BIOSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




AMENDMENT


This Amendment modifies the terms and conditions of the Exclusive Sales and
Distributorship Agreement (the "Agreement") BioShield Technologies, Inc. and
Sanitary Coating Systems, LLP, dated October 20th, 1997. In accordance with
Paragraph 9(n), the parties agree to the following revisions of the Agreement:

         1.)      Attachment II

Supplier agrees to sell BioSure 500 for $5.00 lb. for calender 1999. Purchaser
shall use its best efforts to place a minimum order of at least 100,000 pounds
of BioSure 500 in 1999.

         2.)      Paragraph C(4)(b) and (c):

Supplier and Purchaser agree to a moratorium on the payments under this
Paragraph for a period of one year. Purchaser shall not be responsible for the
payment of Annual Minimum Royalty Fees or any Other Payments in 1999. Instead,
Purchaser shall make payments for ten (10) consecutive years (from 1/1/2000 to
1/1/2010) under the terms indicated in this Paragraph for 1/1/1999 beginning
1/1/2000.

Further, Purchaser personally guarantees to pay the outstanding debt owed to
Supplier for 1998 in the amount of $93,750.00 by March 31st, 1999. If such
amount is not paid in full by said date, the price of the AM500 product will be
raised to $6.00.

         3.)      Paragraph 9(a):

The term of the Agreement shall be extended to 12/31/2009 and Purchaser may at
its option, renew this Agreement for unlimited additional terms of five (5)
years each, provided that at the time of renewal:

         a) The Purchaser shall have given the Supplier written notice that it
            is exercising this option to renew not less than six (6) months or
            more than twelve (12) months prior to the end of the current term.
         b) The Purchaser is not in default of any provision of this Agreement
            and of any amendments hereto; and
         c) The Purchaser has paid all monies owing to the Supplier for the
            current term in accordance with the term of this Agreement and of 
            any Amendment hereto.
<PAGE>   2

                                  BIOSHIELD (TM)
                          BIOSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.





         AMENDMENT
         PAGE 2


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to
         the EXCLUSIVE SALES AND DISTRIBUTORSHIP AGREEMENT as of this the 12th
         day February, 1999.


          SUPPLIER:                              PURCHASER:
         BIOSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES,                 SANITARY COATING SYSTEMS, LLP;
         INC.; A GEORGIA CORPORATION             A FLORIDA CORPORATION




         By:  /s Jacques Elfersy                 By:   /s/ Edwin Schwartz 
            -----------------------------           ---------------------------
         Title:  Sr. V. Pres.                    Title:    Pres.          
               --------------------------              ------------------------
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-38242 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements No. 33-65330, No. 33-80043,
No. 333-38210 and No. 333-38214 on Forms S-8 of Inprimis, Inc. (the "Company"),
formerly Boca Research, Inc., of our report dated February 22, 2001 (which
report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanitory paragraph
related to substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inprimis, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2000.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 21, 2001