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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          18,616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  298,085
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    860,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,193,846
<PP&E>                                         996,647
<DEPRECIATION>                               (275,558)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,936,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          344,351
<BONDS>                                     14,765,560
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,167
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,176,342)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,936,976
<SALES>                                      1,760,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,760,746
<CGS>                                        3,035,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,035,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,047,791
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,055,887
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,378,055)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,378,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 29,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,407,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.10)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ANTHONY NAVARRO, AKA Anthony 

Andrew Navarro, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10213 

D.C. No. 

2:14-cr-00328-KJD-NJK-5 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 4, 2019**

San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and CHOE-GROVES,***Judge.

Anthony Navarro appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 87-month 

sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 

* 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 Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States 

Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), Navarro’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no 

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have 

provided Navarro the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se 

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

In the plea agreement, Navarro waived his right to appeal his conviction and 

sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief. Accordingly, 

Navarro’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Navarro’s appeal is 

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 35.1

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC

                RASC SERIES 2006-KS5 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of June 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"),  among
Residential  Asset Securities  Corporation,  as depositor,  Residential  Funding
Company, LLC (formerly Residential Funding Corporation), as master servicer, and
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material  respects  throughout
such  period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Securities
and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 30, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. This
schedule has been updated to reflect the adoption of Financial Accounting
Standards Board Statement No. 128, "Earnings Per Share".
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          29,500
<SECURITIES>                                     5,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                  524,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (22,100)
<INVENTORY>                                    548,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,324,500
<PP&E>                                       2,177,500
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,517,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,132,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          707,500
<BONDS>                                        497,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     562,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,132,300
<SALES>                                        457,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               457,500
<CGS>                                          259,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  438,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
----

----

| CHYRON CORPORATION                                                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)                         |
|                                                                     |
| (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) |

|   | (1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2) | Aggregate Number of securities to which transaction applies:                                                                                                                                      |
|   | (3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
|   | (4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:                                                                                                                                                  |
|   | (5) | Total fee paid:                                                                                                                                                                                   |

|   | (1) | Amount Previously Paid:                       |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | (2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
|   | (3) | Filing Party:                                 |

----

----

----

----

----
- , 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Baacwablo Gliffapd 9. Roe 

Oounty Attorney 

maala County 

Cart&age, Texas 

Your writt8a ra 

been ncrelved and eamide 

as iollwfs, 

a bottllag 

11s tlmae &i&a 

out %srt Texas. 

otthlsmw3.d be 

llag or lottmy. 

buy l drink aad 

It ‘18 aot fop 

gala other than tb8 

tated above, 18 sly 

W31 
. 

Artiolo 659 of tha Paral Code of thr State of 

TUW, 1925, proride as r0iollovsr 

"Xi say parsan 8hnl1 aatablish a lottely 

or di&908e Or 8tk~ WeAte, real Or p0rSmai, 

by lottory, km sbll be f%iwd not lese than 

06 hundmd nor mom than OLD@ thousand Uollars~ 

QF ii 3~17 pOr8C$X 8hll 8di, OrrW rOF Bale OF 

keep for sale say tioket or part tloket In any 

lottery, b ehall be fined not leas thea teut 

nor more t&n fif%y dollara.* 

This depmtamt held in op.SrUm Ro. O-1918 that 

the olereaotr easeatial to a iottmy aya (1) a prize; (2) 

ohwoo; (3) a oamIdwatlQa. City or Ylnk vs. GrIfrIth Amuseawt cacaslry (auprew Cow), loo 3. Y. 

moment Cwpwy ~8. m, 98 8. W. ( 

d")f&! J C#rIyIth 

d) 

It is olear the Pi~8,t; tw oletemta are preseatt 

the prize is a "cma" drini: to tuo su33essfLil perams out 

or tam&y-four ori~;itaal ywohasero; li!cw&m the "abMo0" 

l lo tmnt obarly am-8 vhfttt the UddS a?0 camidsrad by 

3fhi0h two out 0r tvmy-ropr puroha8ers 0r drwca, aii myiag ttu 8aa4 originai aoarido~ticaa, imp ii they me 

8mll.d upaa by "Ladr Luok" raoelvo the fr0e' drlnk8. Ye 

belleoo thu tblrd alesamt, that of ma81dera~lCml is llk~- 

V18e ik”eaGAt *mder the if&8 oubmlttorl sy sou. fn t&8 OCIImotion YO sa3.l your attesltlan to tie diseumim aad authoritie ofted in oar oplnlat Ro. D-2&3, a so?g of uhloh ve 

are ea431083ng r0r your asslstanue. Ue belisvs the authoritie8 tboab dl80288ed sad olted we epually appllcrrble to 

POW 8ubnitt.d ~08ittfXL. 

x0U wo thOZ?OrWtI lu8J?OOtw rdY%Wd at it i8 

the Opinit%L Or this d8pWttWttt that fib PPOPO~O~ 8Y8tW Or 

8ah4w, rubanitted in fo\tr P@qUkWt, CWtihUt08 * 1OttUy and 

18 praUb;tcsd by Artisle: 654 of tha Pen81 Cod. of the Mate 

0r TUW, 1925. 

.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.37
   /s/ Francis M. Colalucci
    
    9/18/2007Tower Insurance Company of New York
    
    Date/s/ Francis M. Colalucci
    
    9/18/2007Tower National Insurance Company
    
    Date/s/ Michael C. Haines
    
    9/18/2007Preserver Insurance Company
    
    Date/s/ Michael C. Haines
    
    9/18/2007North East Insurance Company
    
    Date/s/ Michael C. Haines
    
    9/18/2007Mountain Valley Indemnity Company
    
    Date/s/ Joseph P. Beitz
    
    9/9/2007CastlePoint Reinsurance Company
    
    Date/s/ Roger A. Brown
    
    9/19/2007CastlePoint Insurance Company
    
    Date
 1




---



##### 



(Hereinafter referred to as the Original Agreement)        (Hereinafter referred to as the Company)
  ARTICLE III COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION
  ARTICLE XIXINSOLVENCY
  2




---



##### 



ARTICLE XXXIV MISCELLANEOUS
    3




---



##### 



(Hereinafter referred to as the Original Agreement)           (Hereinafter referred to as the Subscribing Reinsurer)
     4




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 
 TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORKBy:Name:Title:TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYBy:Name:Title:PRESERVER INSURANCE COMPANYBy:Name:Title:MOUNTAIN VALLEY INDEMNITY COMPANYBy:Name:Title:NORTH EAST INSURANCE COMPANYBy:Name:Title: 
 CASTLEPOINT REINSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.By:Name:Title: 5
NO. 07-05-0378-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 26, 2005

______________________________

ELTON ORTIZ, 

Appellant

v.

ZONIA SCOTT, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT, PRECINCT 1 OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 25,515; HON. JIM TIPTON, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Dismissal

 _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Elton Ortiz appeals to this court from an order of dismissal dismissing his suit

initiated in the Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct No. 1, Potter County. A court of

appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from a justice court. Tejas Elevator

Co. v. Concord Elevator, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1998, no pet.).

Instead, jurisdiction lay in either a county or district court depending upon whether the civil

jurisdiction of the county court is transferred to a district court. Id.; accord, TEX. CIV.PRAC.
2

& REM. CODE ANN. § 51.001(a) & (b) (Vernon 1997). Or, appeal may be had to a county

court at law. See TEX. GOV. CODE ANN. 25.003(a) (Vernon 2004) (stating that a county

court at law has jurisdiction over all causes and proceedings civil and criminal, original and

appellate, prescribed by law).

Lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 662 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 662

To require that in a notice of proposed rulemaking for a new rule, the 
 notice shall identify three rules which the agency intends to repeal.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2021

  Mr. Posey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that in a notice of proposed rulemaking for a new rule, the 
 notice shall identify three rules which the agency intends to repeal.

    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 ``Government Red-Tape Reduction Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO REPEAL THREE RULES BEFORE MAKING A NEW RULE.

    Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) in the case of a notice of proposed rule making for a 
        new rule, except in the case of a new rule which is required by 
        statute, an identification of three rules that the agency 
        intends to repeal, including the date on which the agency began 
        the rule making process in order to repeal such rules.''.
                                 <all>
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Victor James Vargas

, * From the 106th District

Court of Dawson County,

Trial Court No. 13

- 7245

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00283

- CR * November 20, 2014

T he State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
#### William H. JOHNSON, Jr., and Dorothy Battle Johnson, Executrix, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-5033.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 6, 2003.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 6, 2003.

Before MICHEL, BRYSON and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

*This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:*

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
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 Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge,
that:

(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: May 8, 2008                               /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth
Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
Exhibit 10.442


 


ASSIGNMENT


 


This Assignment is made as of the 7th day of November, 2004 by INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois
corporation (“Assignor”) to and for the benefit of INLAND
WESTERN WESLEY CHAPEL NORTHWOODS, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company (“Assignee”).


 


Assignor does hereby sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto
Assignee all of its right, title and interest as Buyer under that certain
Agreement of Sale dated as of September 3, 2004, as amended, and entered into
by Kimco Tampa, LP, as Seller, and Inland Real Estate Acquisitions, Inc.,
Assignor, as Buyer (collectively, the “Agreement”), solely as the Agreement
applies to the sale and purchase of the property described by the Agreement,
located in Wesley Chapel, Florida commonly known as Northwoods Square.


 


Assignor represents and warrants that it is the Buyer under the
Agreement, and that it has not sold, assigned, transferred, or encumbered such
interest in any way to any other person or entity. By acceptance hereof,
Assignee accepts the foregoing Assignment and agrees, from and after the date
hereof, to (i) perform all of the obligations of Buyer under the Agreement, and
(ii) indemnify, defend, protect and hold Assignor harmless from and against all
claims and liabilities arising under the Agreement.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed this instrument as of the
date first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  ASSIGNOR:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND REAL ESTATE
  ACQUISITIONS, INC.,

  
	
   

  	
  an Illinois corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
    G. Joseph Cosenza

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ASSIGNEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND WESTERN WESLEY
  CHAPEL

  
	
   

  	
  NORTHWOODS, L.L.C., a
  Delaware limited

  
	
   

  	
  liability company

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  INLAND WESTERN RETAIL REAL

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  ESTATE TRUST, INC., its sole member

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   [ILLEGIBLE]
#### Jane R. Adler, Respondent, v Joel A. Adler, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), dated September 26, 1989 and entered January 4, 1990, granting plaintiff’s motion directing defendant to pay her the sum of $422,000 pursuant to a prior stipulation of settlement, without condition or qualification, no later than October 1, 1989; and order of said court, entered October 11, 1989, *inter alia,*directing that the defendant pay interest on that portion of the aforementioned sum not paid to plaintiff and permitting plaintiff to remain in the marital residence through February 1, 1990, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On June 29, 1989, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement of their matrimonial action which, *inter alia,*provided that the defendant pay to plaintiff $422,000 on or before October 1, 1989. The payment was conditioned on plaintiff signing those documents necessary to assign her interest in the partnership owning the building in which the marital residence was located and necessary to transfer to the defendant all her rights, title and interest in the land and building. The stipulation of settlement was incorporated into the decree of divorce.

On August 15, 1989, the defendant informed plaintiff that he would make the payment to her during the week of September 25, 1989, at which time she and the parties’ children were to vacate the residence. Because plaintiff had contracted to purchase another apartment requiring extensive renovations and would be unable to vacate at that time, she moved, *inter alia,*(a) to direct the defendant to pay the lump sum on October 1, 1989 without condition or qualification, (b) to enjoin the defendant from interfering with her and the *125children’s occupancy of the marital residence until she obtained a habitable alternative residence, and (c) to enjoin the defendant from charging her rent therefor.

On the return date of the motion, plaintiffs counsel did not timely appear and the motion was adjourned for three weeks. When counsel later appeared, the court, ex parte, rescheduled the return date to September 26, 1989. On the return date, the court granted the motion, holding that the stipulation was unequivocal with regard to defendant’s obligation to pay his distributive share on October 1st. Defendant thereafter obtained a stay from this court to the extent of directing that $25,000 be held in escrow. The Supreme Court then determined the balance of the motion, *inter alia,*directing defendant to pay interest on that portion of the lump sum paid after October 1, 1989 and requiring plaintiff to vacate the premises by February 1,1990.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the stipulation of settlement contained no requirement that plaintiff vacate the premises upon payment of the lump sum. It was within the discretion of the Supreme Court to allow plaintiff and the parties’ children to retain occupancy of the marital residence for a fixed period of time without rent. (Domestic Relations Law § 234.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Smith, JJ.