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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          18,551
<SECURITIES>                                    15,755
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,121
<INVENTORY>                                         95
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,864
<PP&E>                                          11,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,160
<SALES>                                         25,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,658
<CGS>                                            4,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,194
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (578)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        41
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (619)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

KENNETH J. BOHUSLAVSKY,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DOUGLAS W. HALL,

Defendant.

4:23CV3095

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED, 

1) The parties’ stipulation to submit the case to binding arbitration is 

approved. (Filing No. 9).

2) This case is stayed pending arbitration.

3) Beginning December 19, 2023, Defendant shall file a report on this 

court’s docket which explains the current status of the pending 

arbitration. Defendant shall file a similar report every 90 days 

thereafter until the arbitration is complete. 

4) The Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of 

Nebraska shall close this case for statistical purposes and set an 

internal case management deadline of December 19, 2023.

Dated this 19th day of September, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cv-03095-CRZ Doc # 11 Filed: 09/19/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 31
V

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1159

For the relief of Stefan Zajak and Teresa Bartoszewska-Zajak.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 2001

Mr. LATOURETTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Stefan Zajak and Teresa BartoszewskaZajak.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR STEFAN

4 ZAJAK AND TERESA BARTOSZEWSKA-ZAJAK.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Stefan Zajak and Teresa Bartoszewska-Zajak shall

8 each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for

9 adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted

10 for permanent residence upon filing an application for

11 issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such
2

•HR 1159 IH

1 Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resi2 dent.

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Stefan Zajak or

4 Teresa Bartoszewska-Zajak enters the United States be5 fore the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he or

6 she shall be considered to have entered and remained law7 fully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjust8 ment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and

9 Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this

10 Act.

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap13 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica14 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

15 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

16 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

17 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res18 idence to Stefan Zajak and Teresa Bartoszewska-Zajak,

19 the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to

20 reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal

21 year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made

22 available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth

23 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality

24 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas
3

•HR 1159 IH

1 that are made available to natives of the country of the

2 aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States 

v. 06-cr-71-01-02-SM

Elaine A. Brown and

Edward L. Brown

ORDER

Re: Document No. 61, Motion for the Court to Produce Law and

Facts re: Order on [55] Motion to Dismiss 

Ruling: Granted. Grand jury returns are made in open court

in this district to either the Magistrate Judge or a District

Judge, and a digital tape recording of the proceedings are kept. 

To the extent denial of the motion might be thought to include a

finding of fact, the court finds that the defendants conclusory

allegations are unfounded and unsupported. The docket plainly

states at entry 1: " SEALED INDICTMENT . . . Original document

available in clerks office." Defendants may review the original

document, including the return, and, of course, may seek to listen

to, or pay for a transcript of, the return proceeding. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: November 3, 2006

cc: Elaine A. Brown, pro se

Edward L. Brown, pro se

William E. Morse, AUSA

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 70 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 1
**Certification      Pursuant to**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350**

|   | 1. | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Broadband, Inc. for the three-month                period ended November 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and                Exchange                Commission on the date hereof (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 Eagle                Broadband, Inc. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/              DAVID MICEK                                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | David Micek                                                        |
|   | President and Chief Executive              Officer                 |
|   |                                                               |
|   | /s/              JULIET MARKOVICH                                  |
|   | Juliet Markovich                                                   |
|   | Corporate Controller and Principal Accounting              Officer |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael Ledger

 v. Civil No. 06-cv-411-PB

Ryan LeVierge, et al.

O R D E R

I recuse myself from this case as Michael Sheehan is on my

recusal list. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 31, 2008

cc: Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esq.

John A. Curran, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00411-SM Document 27 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7077

ROLANDO GUERRA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-98-1150-4-19BE)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rolando Guerra, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rolondo Guerra seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Guerra v. South Carolina, No. CA-98-1150-4-19BE (D.S.C.

July 2, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
EX-10.24





 Exhibit 10.24 

Supplemental Agreement to the Share Transfer Agreement 

Party A (Transferor): Guangzhou Cornerstone Asset Management Co., Ltd. 

Address: Room 1812, 49F, Guangzhou CTF Finance Center, No. 6 Zhujiang East Road, Zhujiang New Town, Tianhe, Guangzhou Guangdong Province 

Party B (Transferee): Huang Fusheng 
 Address: Suite 502,
No. 261, Huangfu West Avenue, Tianhe, Guangdong Province 
 Party C: Beijing Cornerstone Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the “Target
Company”) 
 Address: 15F, No.79 Jianguo Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 

This Agreement is the supplementary agreement of the Share Transfer Agreement signed by the Parties on June 10, 2019. The Parties hereby agree as follows
through friendly negotiation: 
 Article 1. Change of Payment 

Article 2.1 of the original Agreement is amended as follows: “The total price for the transfer of Target Share is RMB23,000,000 yuan. Party B shall pay
the price in three installments: the first installment RMB3,000,000 shall be paid on or before September 30, 2019; the second installment RMB10,000,000 shall be paid on or before December 31, 2019, and the third installment RMB10,000,000
shall be paid on or before March 31, 2021. 
 Party A’s bank account for receiving the payment is as follows: 

Account Name: Guangzhou Cornerstone Asset Management Co., Ltd. 

Account No.: 640566028533 
 Opening Bank: Bank of China Guangzhou
Pearl River Branch” 
 Article 2. The Parties agree that the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be subject to the Share Transfer
Agreement signed on June 10, 2019 and this Supplementary Agreement. If there is any discrepancy between the document registered by the administration authority for industry and commerce and the Share Transfer Agreement signed on June 10, 2019 as
well as this Supplementary Agreement, the clauses of the Share Transfer Agreement signed on June 10, 2019 and this Supplementary Agreement shall prevail. 












 Article 3. Others 
  

	 	1.	 If there is any discrepancy between the Agreement and the Share Transfer Agreement, the provisions of this
Agreement shall prevail. 


  

	 	2.	 Neither Party may transfer its rights and liabilities under this Agreement without the prior written approval
of the other Parties. 


  

	 	3.	 This Agreement is signed in three copies, with each Party holding one copy. All the copies are equally
effective. 














 Party A (Seal): (seal of Guangzhou Cornerstone Asset Management Co., Ltd.) 

Date: June 10, 2019 
 Party B (Seal): /s/ Huang
Fusheng 
 Date: June 10, 2019 
 Party C (Seal):
(seal of Beijing Cornerstone Asset Management Co., Ltd.) 
 Date: June 10, 2019
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

181 CA 11-02507 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

NIESHA HAYNES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
KALEIDA HEALTH, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, KEVIN FITZPATRICK, M.D., AND MARGARET MULVIHILL, M.D., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

NIESHA HAYNES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.
GIBSON, MCASKILL & CROSBY, LLP, BUFFALO (KATHERINE E. WILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS KALEIDA HEALTH, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AND MARGARET MULVIHILL, M.D.
BROWN & TARANTINO, LLC, BUFFALO (NICOLE D. SCHREIB OF COUNSEL), BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT KEVIN FITZPATRICK, M.D.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M. Curran, J.), entered October 11, 2011. The order granted the motions of defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY v. DICKENSON et al.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 2, 1935.

On Rehearing Aug. 4, 1936.

See, also (Fla.) 169 So. 734.

• John B. Sutton and Henry C. 'Tillman, both of Tampa, for appellant.

W. B. Dickenson and Edwin R. Dicken-son, both of Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The bill of complaint herein contains allegations which if duly proven would sustain orders and decrees for equitable relief appropriate to the issues that may be made and determined in due course. Therefore, the decree appealed from, en-' tered November 24, 1933, dismissing the bill of complaint, is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

WHITFIELD, ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

DAVIS, C. J., disqualified.

On Rehearing.

TERRELL, Justice.

This case is here on rehearing.in exactly the same situation as Hillsborough County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through W. T. Williams, as Chairman, W. T. Watkins, Charles T. Friend, J. W. Lester, and John T. Gunn, as Members of and Constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida, v. W. A. Dickenson, Julia I. Dickenson, and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, a Corporation, 169 So. 734, decided this date, and being companion cases. The record and briefs of counsel have been examined and parallel questions are presented.

It follows that on rehearing our former judgment of reversal is rescinded, and the judgment below is reversed in part and affirmed in part on authority of the companion case here cited.

Reversed in part; affirmed in part.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

BROWN, J., dissents.

DAVIS, J., disqualified.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-156-02-PB

Troy Cote, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant Troy Cote has moved, through counsel, to continue

the March 6, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to engage in plea negotiations or prepare a

defense. The government and co-defendant, Rose Cote, do not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, to allow the parties additional time to 

properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial

from March 6, 2007 to May 1, 2007. In agreeing to continue the

trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A)

that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in

granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendants in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00156-PB Document 23 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 23, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 17, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 22, 2007

cc: R. Brian Snow, Esq.

Tony Soltani, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00156-PB Document 23 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALL BY GRACE HEALTH CARE, INC.

 Appellant,

v. 

TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES COMMISSION

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00223-CV

Appeal from the

353rd Judicial District Court

of Travis County, Texas 

(TC# D-1-GN-22-004307)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s second motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until February 25, 2023. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT. 

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Hayley Ellison, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 25, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2023.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THURSTON B. McAFEE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. RIVERO; B. HILL,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17085

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02497-EMC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Thurston B. McAfee, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to safety and due process violations. We have jurisdiction

FILED

NOV 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17085

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev.,

290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on McAfee’s Eighth

Amendment claim because McAfee failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether defendant Hill acted with deliberate indifference to McAfee’s

safety before the riot erupted in the dining hall, or as to whether Hill acted

“maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” after he

recognized that tensions were building and called for reinforcements. Johnson v.

Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2000) (the state-of-mind requirement for an

Eighth Amendment claim “varies with the circumstances of the claim”); see also

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297-98 (1991) (inmate must establish that prison

officials “possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind” to implicate the Eighth

Amendment). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on McAfee’s claim

that his due process rights were violated in a prison disciplinary hearing because,

even assuming that there was a protected liberty interest at stake, McAfee failed to

raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether prison officials afforded him

all of the process that he was due. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454

(1985) (some evidence must support decision that results in revocation of good
3 11-17085

time credits); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting forth due

process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings that implicate a liberty

interest). McAfee’s challenge to Rivero’s decision not to call a witness is

unavailing, where Rivero determined that the witness would be irrelevant. See

Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566 (the right to call witnesses is not unqualified, and prison

authorities have discretion not to call witnesses, “whether it be for irrelevance, lack

of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases”). 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LANCELOT WADDINGTON GIBBS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CR-91-86-C-MU)

Submitted: November 27, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Culver, III, Cory Hohnbaum, KENNEDY, COVINGTON, LOBDELL &

HICKMAN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.

Calloway, United States Attorney, Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lancelot Waddington Gibbs appeals from the district court's

order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to various

drug offenses. We affirm.

Gibbs has the burden of showing a "fair and just reason" for

wishing to withdraw his guilty plea and that the district court

abused its discretion in denying his request. United States v.

Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1393 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 672 (1994); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). Such a fair

and just reason "is one that essentially challenges either the

fairness of the [Fed. R. Crim. P. 11] proceeding ... or the fulfillment of a promise or condition emanating from the proceeding."

Lambey, 974 F.2d at 1394.

Gibbs argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea

based on the fact that following his guilty plea, one of his

codefendants stated in a sworn affidavit that Gibbs was unaware of

the conduct forming the basis of one of the offenses. Finding no

abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of his motion

to withdraw that plea, we affirm. 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